Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module

From	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module
Date	2017-03-30 18:10 +0200
Message-ID	<tqKO5-mb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <tq2Dn-22K-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqb3Y-8bm-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqp6W-1bC-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqxHb-7zf-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tqKuK-8ry-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	ARM

Show all headers | View raw


On 30/03/17 16:46, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On 29 March 2017 at 19:59, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:55:35AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> So this is why add "idle_constraint" as a central place to control
>>>> power domain for CPU debug purpose and I also think this is more
>>>> friendly for hardware design, e.g. some platforms can enable partial
>>>> low power states to save power and avoid overheat after using this
>>>> driver.
>>>>
>>>> How about you think for this?
>>>
>>> Like Sudeep pointed out we should concentrate on doing the right thing,
>>> that is work with EDPRSR.PU, EDPRCR.COREPURQ and EDPRCR.CORENPDRQ.
>>
>> Agree, and I think we have aligned for this.
>>
>>> Anything outside of that becomes platform specific and can't be handled in
>>> this driver.
>>
>> Sorry I argue a bit for this just want to make things more clear and
>> if can have better method.
>>
>> Though the issue is platform specific, but the code is to seek common
>> method to handle them. So the driver has no any platform specific code.
> 
> Seeking a common way to handle platform specific problems doesn't
> scale and will never be encompassing.  There will always be a quirk
> somewhere to deal with, hence the idea of keeping things separate.
> 

I completely agree and just responded to the original patch.

>>
>> I read again for Suziki's suggestion: "4) Should document the fact that,
>> on some platforms, the user may have to disable CPUidle explicitly to
>> get the driver working. But let us not make it the default. The user
>> with a not so ideal platform could add "nohlt" and get it working."
> 
> Suzuki and I are expressing the same view using different words.
> 

+1, as I just mentioned on the patch, we can warn user to take action
when this feature gets enabled to get desired result and *nothing more*
than that. Please drop all these pm_qos stuff.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> - 2017-03-28 19:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> - 2017-03-29 04:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org> - 2017-03-29 17:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> - 2017-03-30 03:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com> - 2017-03-30 11:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> - 2017-03-30 16:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-03-30 18:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> - 2017-03-29 19:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> - 2017-03-30 04:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> - 2017-03-30 17:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] coresight: add support for CPU debug module Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2017-03-30 18:10 +0200

csiph-web