Hi Steven,
On Thu, Jan 18 2018 at 01:26 +0000, Steven Rostedt wrote:
I wasn't Cc'd on the rest of the patches and this wasn't Cc'd to LKML,
and I'm not on any of the mailing lists that were Cc'd, I gotta just
look at what I have here in this patch.
I am so sorry. Will add LKML in the future.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2018 17:01:56 -0700
Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
@@ -325,6 +328,8 @@ static irqreturn_t tcs_irq_handler(int irq, void *p)
}
}
+ trace_rpmh_notify_irq(drv->name, m, resp->msg->payload[0].addr,
+ resp->err);
Below, m came from resp->m, is it the same here?
Yes, they will be the same.
write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_ENABLE, m, 0, 0);
write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_IRQ_CLEAR, 0, 0, BIT(m));
atomic_set(&drv->tcs_in_use[m], 0);
@@ -351,7 +356,8 @@ static void tcs_notify_tx_done(unsigned long data)
struct rsc_drv *drv = (struct rsc_drv *)data;
struct tcs_response *resp;
unsigned long flags;
- int err;
+ int err, m;
+ struct tcs_mbox_msg *msg;
do {
spin_lock_irqsave(&drv->drv_lock, flags);
@@ -364,7 +370,10 @@ static void tcs_notify_tx_done(unsigned long data)
list_del(&resp->list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&drv->drv_lock, flags);
err = resp->err;
+ m = resp->m;
+ msg = resp->msg;
free_response(resp);
+ trace_rpmh_notify(drv->name, m, msg->payload[0].addr, err);
The reason I ask, is that this is causing more code to be executed
even when tracing is off. What about passing in resp and assigning it
within the tracepoint.
trace_rpmh_notify(drv->name, resp);
The free_response(resp) will free the resp object and accessing resp->m
is invalid after that.
That would keep extra code from being used within the normal code path
and only executed in the tracepoint. Get rid of the m = resp->m,
msg = resp->msg.
Even if m is something different above, you can still just pass in:
trace_rpmh_notify(drv->name, m, resp);
} while (1);
}
May be I can just move the free_response() afer the
trace_rpmh_notify().
@@ -393,6 +402,8 @@ static void __tcs_buffer_write(struct rsc_drv *drv, int m, int n,
write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_MSGID, m, n + i, msgid);
write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_ADDR, m, n + i, cmd->addr);
write_tcs_reg(base, RSC_DRV_CMD_DATA, m, n + i, cmd->data);
+ trace_rpmh_send_msg(drv->name, m, n + i, msgid, cmd->addr,
+ cmd->data, cmd->complete);
Here just pass in cmd. The less the parameters of a tracepoints, the
more likely gcc wont leak code that would be executed when tracing is
off.
OK.
+#include <linux/tracepoint.h>
+
+DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(rpmh_ack_recvd,
+
+ TP_PROTO(const char *s, int m, u32 addr, int errno),
+
+ TP_ARGS(s, m, addr, errno),
Then we could just do:
TP_PROTO(const char *s, struct tcs_response *resp),
TP_ARGS(s, resp),
Nice. Will use this.
+
+ TP_STRUCT__entry(
+ __field(const char *, name)
+ __field(int, m)
+ __field(u32, addr)
+ __field(int, errno)
+ ),
+
+ TP_fast_assign(
+ __entry->name = s;
+ __entry->m = m;
+ __entry->addr = addr;
+ __entry->errno = errno;
__entry->m = resp->m;
__entry->addr = resp->msg->payload[0].addr;
__entry->errno = resp->err;
-- Steve
Thanks for the review.
-- Lina
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
