On 18/10/2024 11:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 17/10/2024 09:23, Tao Zhang wrote:
On 10/9/2024 6:52 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
Krzysztof
On 22/08/2024 12:50, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 22/08/2024 11:34, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 22/08/2024 08:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:38:55AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
On 21/08/2024 04:13, Tao Zhang wrote:
The is some "magic" hard coded filtering in the replicators,
which only passes through trace from a particular "source". Add
a new property "filter-src" to label a phandle to the coresight
trace source device matching the hard coded filtering for the port.
Minor nit: Please do not use abbreviate "source" in the bindings.
I am not an expert on other changes below and will leave it to
Rob/Krzysztof to comment.
Rob, Krzysztof,
We need someway to "link" (add a phandle) from a "port". The patch
below
is extending "standard" port to add a phandle. Please let us know if
there is a better way.
e.g.:
filters = list of tuples of port, phandle. ?
e.g.:
filters = < 0, <&tpdm_video>,
1, <&tpdm_mdss>
>
Current solution feels like band-aid - what if next time you need some
second filter? Or "wall"? Or whatever? Next property?
Isn't filter just one endpoint in the graph?
A <--> filter <--> B
To be more precise, "Filter" is a "port (p0, p1, p2 below)" (among a
multi output ports).
For clearer example:
A0 <--> .. <--> ..\ p0 / --> Filtered for (A1)
<--> B1
A1 <--> .. <--> .. - < L(filters> p1 - --> Filtered for (A2)
<--> B2
A2 <--> .. <--> ../ p2 \ --> Unfiltered
<--> B0
Instead of
A <----through-filter----> B?
The problem is we need to know the components in the path from A0 to X
through, (Not just A0 and L). And also we need to know "which port
(p0 vs p1 vs p2)" does the traffic take from a source (A0/A1/A2) out
of the
link "L".
So ideally, we need a way to tie p0 -> A1, p1 -> A2.
would we need something else in the future ? I don't know for sure.
People could design their own things ;-). But this was the first time
ever in the last 12yrs since we supported coresight in the kernel.
(there is always a first time).
Fundamentally, the "ports" cannot have additional properties today.
Not sure if there are other usecases (I don't see why). So, we have
to manually extend like above, which I think is not nice.
Replying to the other thread [0], made me realize that the above is not
true. Indeed it is possible to add properties for endpoints, e.g:
e.g.: media/video-interfaces.yaml
So extending the endpoint node is indeed acceptable (unlike I thought).
May be the we it is achieved in this patch is making it look otherwise.
Suzuki
[0]
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/4b51d5a9-3706-4630-83c1-01b01354d9a4@xxxxxxx
Please could you let us know if it is acceptable to extend "endpoint"
node to have an optional property ?
Hi Krzysztof,
Kindly reminder, could you help comment on this?
I don't have any smart ideas and with earlier explanation sounds ok.
Just to confirm, are you OK with adding a property to the "endpoint"
node that will indicate a phandle that the device allows on this
endpoint ?
Kind regards
Suzuki
Best regards,
Krzysztof
