[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571E2F16.3010706@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:52:06 +0100
From: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 13/18] coresight: tmc: make sysFS and Perf mode
mutually exclusive
On 25/04/16 15:48, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On 25 April 2016 at 08:32, Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com> wrote:
>> On 22/04/16 18:14, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&drvdata->spinlock, flags);
>>> + if (drvdata->reading) {
>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + val = local_xchg(&drvdata->mode, mode);
>>> + /*
>>> + * In Perf mode there can be only one writer per sink. There
>>> + * is also no need to continue if the ETR is already operated
>>> + * from sysFS.
>>> + */
>>> + if (val != CS_MODE_DISABLED) {
>>
>>
>> Could val be CS_MODE_PERF ? In other words, should we be checking :
>> if (val == CS_MODE_SYSFS) instead ?
>
> If we check for CS_MODE_SYSFS we also have to check for CS_MODE_PERF,
> which is two checks rather than a single one with the current
> solution.
I am confused now. The comment says, we want to check for sysfs mode and
don't continue in that case. So, we shouldn't be worried about PERF mode.
Suzuki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists