On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:18:36PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>
> On 1/18/2019 5:52 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > SDM845 has ETMv4.2 and can use the existing etm4x driver.
> > But the current etm driver checks only for ETMv4.0 and
> > errors out for other etm4x versions. This patch adds this
> > missing support to enable SoC's with ETMv4x to use same
> > driver by checking only the ETM architecture major version
> > number.
> >
> > Without this change, we get below error during etm probe:
> >
> > / # dmesg | grep etm
> > [ 6.660093] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7040000.etm failed with error -22
> > [ 6.666902] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7140000.etm failed with error -22
> > [ 6.673708] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7240000.etm failed with error -22
> > [ 6.680511] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7340000.etm failed with error -22
> > [ 6.687313] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7440000.etm failed with error -22
> > [ 6.694113] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7540000.etm failed with error -22
> > [ 6.700914] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7640000.etm failed with error -22
> > [ 6.707717] coresight-etm4x: probe of 7740000.etm failed with error -22
> >
> > With this change, etm probe is successful:
> >
> > / # dmesg | grep coresight
> > [ 6.659198] coresight-etm4x 7040000.etm: CPU0: ETM v4.2 initialized
> > [ 6.665848] coresight-etm4x 7140000.etm: CPU1: ETM v4.2 initialized
> > [ 6.672493] coresight-etm4x 7240000.etm: CPU2: ETM v4.2 initialized
> > [ 6.679129] coresight-etm4x 7340000.etm: CPU3: ETM v4.2 initialized
> > [ 6.685770] coresight-etm4x 7440000.etm: CPU4: ETM v4.2 initialized
> > [ 6.692403] coresight-etm4x 7540000.etm: CPU5: ETM v4.2 initialized
> > [ 6.699024] coresight-etm4x 7640000.etm: CPU6: ETM v4.2 initialized
> > [ 6.705646] coresight-etm4x 7740000.etm: CPU7: ETM v4.2 initialized
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c
> > index 53e2fb6e86f6..93d5f1f3145e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c
> > @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ static void etm4_os_unlock(struct etmv4_drvdata *drvdata)
> > static bool etm4_arch_supported(u8 arch)
> > {
> > - switch (arch) {
> > + switch (arch >> 4) {
>
>
> While this looks good, from what it looks like arch is a combination of
> major version
> minor version. So, will it be better to masks, and shifts macros instead of
> a magic
> number shift.
> But, frankly it's upto Mathieu to decide the readability of this. So, I
> leave it to him.
The layout of the architecture is already well defined in etm4_init_arch_data()
[1]. As such just doing the following would be fine with me:
/* Mask out the minor version nuber */
switch (arch & 0xf) {
Of course by proceeding this way we don't need to modify the define in
coresight-etm4x.h.
Regards,
Mathieu
[1]. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.c#L508
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
> > case ETM_ARCH_V4:
> > break;
> > default:
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h
> > index 52786e9d8926..05d4bd330881 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h
> > +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm4x.h
> > @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
> > #define ETM_MAX_RES_SEL 16
> > #define ETM_MAX_SS_CMP 8
> > -#define ETM_ARCH_V4 0x40
> > +#define ETM_ARCH_V4 0x4
> > #define ETMv4_SYNC_MASK 0x1F
> > #define ETM_CYC_THRESHOLD_MASK 0xFFF
> > #define ETM_CYC_THRESHOLD_DEFAULT 0x100
