On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 18 June 2017 at 08:04, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:55:28AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 03:36:40PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>> > The Linux coresight drivers define the programmable ATB replicator as >>> > Qualcom replicator, while this is designed by ARM. This can cause confusion >>> > to a user selecting the driver. Cleanup all references to make it >>> > explicitly clear. This patch : >>> > >>> > 1) Adds a new compatible string for the same, retaining the old one for >>> > compatibility. >>> > 2) Changes the Kconfig symbol (since this is not part of any defconfigs) >>> > CORESIGHT_QCOM_REPLICATOR => CORESIGHT_DYNAMIC_REPLICATOR >>> > 3) Improves the help message in the Kconfig. >>> > 4) Changes the name of the driver : >>> > coresight-replicator-qcom => coresight-dynamic-replicator >>> > >>> > Cc: Pratik Patel <pratikp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> > Cc: Ivan T. Ivanov <ivan.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> >>> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> >>> >>> Hi Suzuki, >>> >>> > --- >>> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 4 +++- >>> > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig | 10 +++++----- >>> > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Makefile | 2 +- >>> > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-replicator-qcom.c | 2 +- >>> > 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>> > >>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt >>> > index fcbae6a..f77329f 100644 >>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt >>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt >>> > @@ -34,7 +34,9 @@ its hardware characteristcs. >>> > - Embedded Trace Macrocell (version 4.x): >>> > "arm,coresight-etm4x", "arm,primecell"; >>> > >>> > - - Qualcomm Configurable Replicator (version 1.x): >>> > + - Coresight programmable Replicator (version 1.x): >>> > + "arm,coresight-dynamic-replicator", "arm,primecell"; >>> > + OR >>> > "qcom,coresight-replicator1x", "arm,primecell"; >>> >>> Rob, what's your view on keeping the old binding around? We could simply change >>> the two occurences we find in the DTs (Juno and 410c) to the new name and be >>> done with the old one. >> >> Juno uses the Qcom string? We should keep the old string. You can switch >> the dts files, but the driver should support the old name. > > When we first started working on CoreSight programmable replicators > were available but the documentation wasn't public. As such when I > saw Qualcomm's design I mistakenly thought it was a custom IP block > and came up with a compatible string that reflected that reality. > Fast forward 3 years the documentation is available and Juno has used > the same IP block in their design. Suzuki's patch rectifies history > by changing the programmable replicator naming convention to what it > should have been from the start. > > That being said, we can keep the old compatible string around but it > won't change anything. CoreSight devices are discovered on the AMBA > bus and don't use the compatible string - drivers are probed based on > AMBA IDs laid out in the drivers and device IDs found in HW ID > registers. > > In light of the above let me know what you want to do. Well, if drivers don't use the string, then there is nothing to keep around. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
