On 5 May 2017 at 09:04, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 05/05/17 15:48, Mathieu Poirier wrote: >> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > [...] > >>> >>> Just curious as why this is not registered under coresight bus using >>> coresight_register ? It would be good to group all the coresight devices >>> under that bus if possible. >> >> The only thing this driver has in common with the coresight framework is the >> name, everything else is completely different. Coupling them together (because >> of the name) would introduce a lot of hacks and make the code unintelligible. >> > > I guessed so from the quick glance at it as it needs descriptors with > notion of source, sink and links to register. However I felt odd to not > group under the same "coresight" bus. As someone with least knowledge > on coresight, I would check under "sys/bus/coresight" to check available > devices on the system. 2 years ago when implementing the coresight framework, using "coresight" sounded like a logical choice but in hindsight it probably should have been something like coresight-hat (HW Assisted Tracing). That would have been a better representation of the reality, i.e the term "coresight" being an umbrella for many kind of technology. Leo has done the right thing here with "coresight-cpu-debug". > > Anyways that's just my thoughts though I agree with you. It may need > more refactoring to support that and it will look hackish if we try to > do that with the code as it stands. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
