On 5 May 2017 at 09:04, Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] wrote:

On 05/05/17 15:48, Mathieu Poirier wrote:

quoted

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

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