CoreSight framework and drivers
From: Jon Hunter <hidden>
Date: 2012-12-20 22:55:03
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-devicetree, lkml
On 12/20/2012 01:51 PM, Pratik Patel wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:46:13AM -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:quoted
On 12/19/2012 03:24 PM, Pratik Patel wrote: [snip]quoted
Currently we use the CoreSight virtual bus to conveniently list sysfs configuration attributes for all the registered CoreSight devices. For eg: /sys/bus/coresight/devices/coresight-etm0/<attribute> /sys/bus/coresight/devices/coresight-etm1/<attribute> /sys/bus/coresight/devices/coresight-stm/<attribute> /sys/bus/coresight/devices/coresight-tmc-etf/<attribute> ... ... Some of the attributes are based on device type (i.e. source, link or sink) so they will exist for all devices of that type while some are device specific. Maybe I am misunderstanding the question but are you suggesting to register CoreSight devices to the AMBA bus instead of the CoreSight core layer code?Yes exactly.quoted
Will Deacon mentioned earlier that AMBA framework can be changed to accomodate devices with a different class but I am more concerned with losing some of the stuff that the core layer code does (eg. coresight_register, coresight_enable, coresight_disable in coresight.c) if we register CoreSight drivers to the AMBA bus without letting the core layer know about the device connections.I may be missing something, but couldn't you keep all the register/enable/disable stuff but just register the device with the amba bus? Obviously some changes would need to be made.Ok, so are you referring to making CoreSight devices register with AMBA bus instead of platform bus keeping everything else intact?
Yes exactly. However, please note I am not saying that we should do this, and I asking what direction does the community want us to take here? Platform bus or AMBA bus?
quoted
Personally, I don't have strong feeling either way, but we have ETM/ETB drivers using AMBA today and so I am hoping we can come to agreement on this going forward. Russell, Will, what are your thoughts? Otherwise, looking at the code, I like what you have implemented. I still need to look closer, but I am struggling to figure out how a coresight device such as the cross-trigger-interface fits with this model. This model appears to be geared towards coresight devices used for traces purposes and are either source, links or sinks. The cross-trigger-interface is not a source or a sink. However, although you it could be considered as a link (routing events), it is not really, as it may not link to other coresight sinks/source. In my case, I have PMU-IRQ --> CTI --> GIC. So a non-coresight source and sink. In away the CTI looks more like a 2nd-level interrupt controller than anything else. Hence, another type of coresight device may be needed in addition to source, links and sinks. Or link is extended in some way to connect to non-coresight sources/sinks. Let me know if you have any thoughts.I had left the "None" type for miscellaneous stuff but I agree it should be a separate type - maybe "debug". Having said that I like the CTI driver you have uploaded. Need to look at it in more detail. Since CTI connections can vary between chip to chip, we need a generic way to deal with it.
Yes if you have any ideas let me know. As Will had mentioned it would be good to have a common function table all these devices could use too. I will take a closer look at what you have. Cheers Jon