lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 1/4] arm-cci: Refactor CCI PMU code
    From
    Date
    On 04/11/15 18:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
    > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 02:05:23PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
    >> This patch refactors the CCI PMU driver code a little bit to
    >> make it easier share the code for enabling/disabling the CCI
    >> PMU. This will be used by the hooks to work around the special cases
    >> where writing to a counter is not always that easy(e.g, CCI-500)
    >>


    >> +static void cci_pmu_disable(struct pmu *pmu)
    >> +{
    >> + struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu = to_cci_pmu(pmu);
    >> + struct cci_pmu_hw_events *hw_events = &cci_pmu->hw_events;
    >> + unsigned long flags;
    >> +
    >> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&hw_events->pmu_lock, flags);
    >> + __cci_pmu_disable();
    >> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hw_events->pmu_lock, flags);
    >> +}
    >
    > Why are these moved up here? It makes the diff harder to read, and it
    > doesn't seem necessary in the context of this patch.
    >
    > Would they otherwise have to move in a later patch? It might be better
    > to move them when required (without changes).

    These will be used later in cci500 specific routines to write the counter.
    I can move them later.


    >> - if (unlikely(!pmu_is_valid_counter(cci_pmu, idx)))
    >> + if (unlikely(!pmu_is_valid_counter(cci_pmu, idx))) {
    >> dev_err(&cci_pmu->plat_device->dev, "Invalid CCI PMU counter %d\n", idx);
    >> - else
    >> - pmu_write_register(cci_pmu, value, idx, CCI_PMU_CNTR);
    >> + return;
    >> + }
    >> + __pmu_write_counter(cci_pmu, idx, value);
    >> }
    >
    > While I don't disagree with the new structure of this function, the
    > reorganisation wasn't necessary. We only need to substitute
    > __pmu_write_counter in place of pmu_write_register.

    We will add a check in Patch4/4 to override the default method with a
    CCI_PMU model specific method.

    >
    > I'm happy with splitting out the lower level accessors, but I think the
    > additional reshuffling makes this patch overly complex. I'd prefer the
    > minial facotring out if possible.

    Ok, I will rearrange the patches to make the changes readable.

    Thanks
    Suzuki



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-11-04 19:41    [W:3.967 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site