[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f3d1563-0e85-5826-4602-090ec4ff3272@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 10:03:13 +0000
From: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
suzuki.poulose@....com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
coresight@...ts.linaro.org
Cc: leo.yan@...aro.com, mike.leach@...aro.org,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/15] Make ETM register accesses consistent with
sysreg.h
On 07/02/2022 05:51, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On 2/3/22 5:35 PM, James Clark wrote:
>> James Clark (15):
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCIDR0 register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCIDR2 register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCIDR3 register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCIDR4 register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCIDR5 register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCCONFIGR register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCEVENTCTL1R register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCSTALLCTLR register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCVICTLR register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM3x ETMTECR1 register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCACATRn register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCSSCCRn and TRCSSCSRn register accesses
>> consistent with sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCSSPCICRn register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCBBCTLR register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>> coresight: Make ETM4x TRCRSCTLRn register accesses consistent with
>> sysreg.h
>
> The changes here are very similar to each other. But they are split
> into different patches according to register names just for better
> review process ? OR is there any other rationale ?
Yes just for the review process. I didn't see a way of reviewing them all
in one change because it's so big, and the only logical way to split it was
by register so I did it that way.
>
> - Anshuman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists