Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 8 February 2016 at 06:26, Alexander Shishkin > <alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This $end==$start situation itself may be ambiguous and can be >> interpreted either as having just one *static* master ID fixed for all >> SW writers (what I assumed from your commit message) or as having a >> floating master ID, which changes of its own accord and is not >> controllable by software. > > Some clarification here. > > On ARM from a SW point of view $end == $start and that doesn't change > (with regards to masterIDs) . The ambiguity comes from the fact that > on other platforms where masterID configuration does change and is > important, the condition $end == $start could also be valid. Yes, that's what I was saying. The thing is, on the system-under-tracing side these two situations are not very different from one another. Master IDs are really just numbers without any semantics attached to them in the sense that they are not covered by the mipi spec or any other standard (to my knowledge). The difference is in the way we map channels to masters. One way is to allocate a distinct set of channels for each master (the way Intel Trace Hub does it); another way is to share the same set of channels between multiple masters. So we can describe this as "hardware implements the same set of channels across multiple masters" or something along those lines. Actually, in the latter scheme of things you can also have multiple masters, at least theoretically. Say, you have masters [0..15], each with distinct set of channels, but depending on hardware state these masters actually end up as $state*16+$masterID in the STP stream. So we might also think about differentiating between the hardware masters (0 though 15 in the above example) and STP masters. Regards, -- Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
