From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0951DD529 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742236204; cv=none; b=CNKh7sXyVG6eXhO/9OoCS+bZTKsDlosuiGEQWOXM6SiUXxBCwLt7sRDQdP7AUEzXMFnIVdQ+UuJnx+/cjfqAD7ZFMS3D+IegeWo5TMam2P4GpScLgE1RGhlg0gQVqY/VNfZ0TlLWxKAJffyDzvw5cM/PtpSODs6QLjYVzWy8kT4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742236204; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SwbECmA+mx0FgvO55OhdvqalxHC2zQXXTODO6O+8PZA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FG5N1SpQxpBaJc4Gz+pQbvlQiayl7rTGwUQW18ZtL0K/uWhDwc3G3phcbaf0Ukdye3S1l6sRosoVsP3wszxDrDxuFUsGRV4hURKcxsuuw8TIAYLGagW7thKQoDy19v60f8To7VSHkmrAAVsWAJrxoCOOSBlhbXQKflfWmP4AsD0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E7D13D5; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (e132581.arm.com [10.1.196.87]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D57943F63F; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:29:57 +0000 From: Leo Yan To: James Clark Cc: lcherian@marvell.com, coresight@lists.linaro.org, Mike Leach , Alexander Shishkin , Maxime Coquelin , Alexandre Torgue , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] coresight: Convert disclaim functions to take a struct cs_access Message-ID: <20250317182957.GL2487211@e132581.arm.com> References: <20250211103945.967495-1-james.clark@linaro.org> <20250211103945.967495-3-james.clark@linaro.org> <20250313145456.GR9682@e132581.arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:36:40AM +0000, James Clark wrote: > > > On 13/03/2025 2:54 pm, Leo Yan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:39:38AM +0000, James Clark wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > static inline bool coresight_is_claimed_any(struct coresight_device *csdev) > > > { > > > - return coresight_read_claim_tags(csdev) != 0; > > > + return coresight_read_claim_tags(&csdev->access) != 0; > > > } > > > > Likewise other claim functions, can coresight_is_claimed_any() change its > > argument type from struct coresight_device to struct csdev_access? > > I only wanted to change the ones that I had to. I think we should prioritize > passing csdev as much as possible in the coresight framework to make > everything consistent. Otherwise it's extra churn for no benefit, and if we > need something from csdev here in the future we'll have to change this one > back again. The function coresight_is_claimed_any() has been deleted in a later patch. So this is fine for me. In theory, claim tags are low level operations and don't need a CoreSight device context, I prefer we can keep them as simple as possible. With this series, we can see coresight_claim_device() and coresight_disclaim_device() are inconsistent for their parameters: one is using "struct coresight_device *" and another is "struct csdev_access *". Maybe we just proceed to use csdev_access for all claim tag functions? If later we need to use a CoreSight device context when operating claim tags, it means we might have different scenarios and we can handle that separately. Thanks, Leo