From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@arm.com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>
Cc: lcherian@marvell.com, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] coresight: Clear self hosted claim tag on probe
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:09:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250317180945.GK2487211@e132581.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6be400e2-a464-4714-acf4-328dade883a9@linaro.org>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 03:05:41PM +0000, James Clark wrote:
[...]
> > > /*
> > > - * coresight_disclaim_device_unlocked : Clear the claim tag for the device.
> > > + * Clear the claim tag for the device.
> > > + * Returns an error if the device wasn't already claimed.
> > > + */
> > > +int coresight_reset_claim(struct csdev_access *csa)
> > > +{
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + CS_UNLOCK(csa->base);
> > > + ret = coresight_reset_claim_unlocked(csa);
> > > + CS_LOCK(csa->base);
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(coresight_reset_claim);
> >
> > Maybe my question is overlapping with Mike's comment.
> >
> > Callers never check the return values from coresight_reset_claim(). I am
>
> I can remove the return value if it's confusing. The thought process was
> probably that it could be useful somewhere in the future, and
> coresight_reset_claim_unlocked() returns something anyway so might as well
> pass it up.
>
> > wandering if coresight_reset_claim() can directly call
> > coresight_clear_self_claim_tag() for _trying_ to clear self-host tag in
> > probe phase. Any self claim tag issues will be deferred to detect until
> > enable the component.
> >
>
> Maybe, the spec does a read before setting which I assumed should be done
> for clearing as well.
If you mean PSCI doc, the flow for claiming tag is a handshake between
self-host software and external debugger, this is why a read is
required.
For a cleaning up, it is not about syncing with external debugger. And
writing bit 0 to TRCCLAIMCLR will not impact external debugger. So I
don't think a read prior to cleaning self claim tag is needed.
> As in to not touch anything if it's in use externally.
> It doesn't specifically describe any clearing sequence, but if we assume
> it's ok to blindly clear self hosted flag even when it's in use then yes we
> can directly call coresight_clear_self_claim_tag().
As a result, directly calling coresight_clear_self_claim_tag() works
for me.
Thanks,
Leo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-17 18:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-11 10:39 [PATCH 0/7] coresight: Clear self hosted claim tag on probe James Clark
2025-02-11 10:39 ` [PATCH 1/7] coresight: Rename coresight_{set,clear}_claim_tags() James Clark
2025-03-13 11:24 ` Leo Yan
2025-02-11 10:39 ` [PATCH 2/7] coresight: Convert disclaim functions to take a struct cs_access James Clark
2025-03-13 14:54 ` Leo Yan
2025-03-17 11:36 ` James Clark
2025-03-17 18:29 ` Leo Yan
2025-03-18 9:27 ` James Clark
2025-02-11 10:39 ` [PATCH 3/7] coresight: Only check bottom two claim bits James Clark
2025-03-13 11:46 ` Leo Yan
2025-02-11 10:39 ` [PATCH 4/7] coresight: Add claim tag warnings and debug messages James Clark
2025-03-13 14:40 ` Leo Yan
2025-03-17 11:56 ` James Clark
2025-02-11 10:39 ` [PATCH 5/7] coresight: Clear self hosted claim tag on probe James Clark
2025-02-12 18:24 ` Mike Leach
2025-02-13 13:20 ` James Clark
2025-03-13 16:04 ` Leo Yan
2025-03-17 15:05 ` James Clark
2025-03-17 18:09 ` Leo Yan [this message]
2025-02-11 10:39 ` [PATCH 6/7] coresight: Remove inlines from static function definitions James Clark
2025-03-14 9:50 ` Leo Yan
2025-03-17 15:26 ` James Clark
2025-03-17 17:45 ` Leo Yan
2025-02-11 10:39 ` [PATCH 7/7] coresight: Remove extern from function declarations James Clark
2025-03-13 16:17 ` Leo Yan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250317180945.GK2487211@e132581.arm.com \
--to=leo.yan@arm.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com \
--cc=coresight@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=james.clark@linaro.org \
--cc=lcherian@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com \
--cc=mike.leach@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox