From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754810AbbLJPmp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:42:45 -0500
Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-143.mimecast.com ([207.82.80.143]:39359 "EHLO
	eu-smtp-delivery-143.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752050AbbLJPmo convert rfc822-to-8bit
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Dec 2015 10:42:44 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 3/5] arm-cci: Add routines to enable/disable all
 counters
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
References: <1447783407-18027-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <1447783407-18027-4-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20151210153222.GE495@leverpostej>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, punit.agrawal@arm.com,
        arm@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
Message-ID: <56699D71.3070006@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:42:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151210153222.GE495@leverpostej>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2015 15:42:41.0464 (UTC) FILETIME=[67AC3B80:01D13361]
X-MC-Unique: NixQHdwGRnCfwhcfDM1hMg-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:03:25PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:


>> +static void __maybe_unused
>> +pmu_disable_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
>> +{
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < cci_pmu->num_cntrs; i++) {
>> +		if (pmu_counter_is_enabled(cci_pmu, i)) {
>> +			set_bit(i, mask);
>> +			pmu_disable_counter(cci_pmu, i);
>> +		} else
>> +			clear_bit(i, mask);
>
> Can we not assume a clean mask to begin with?

If we force the caller to pass a clean mask, yes we could. I am fine
with either approach.

>
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Restore the status of the counters. Reversal of the pmu_disable_counters().
>> + * For each counter set in the mask, enable the counter back.
>> + */
>> +static void __maybe_unused
>> +pmu_restore_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask)
>
> This would probably be better with s/restore/enable/ for consistency
> with pmu_disable_counters.

I had thought as well, but then chose restore as we don't enable all the
counters. Given that we pass a mask argument, it is fine to change it to
enable and will do that in the next one.

>
> Other than that this looks fine to me.

Thanks for the review.

Cheers
Suzuki