[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874isuo0m2.fsf@rasp.cworth.amperemail.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 10:31:17 -0700
From: Carl Worth <carl@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Jie Gan <jie.gan@....qualcomm.com>, Suzuki K Poulose
<suzuki.poulose@....com>, Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>, James Clark
<james.clark@...aro.org>, Alexander Shishkin
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Jie Gan <jie.gan@....qualcomm.com>,
Tingwei Zhang <tingwei.zhang@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] coresight: tmc: add the handle of the event to
the path
Jie Gan <jie.gan@....qualcomm.com> writes:
> From: Carl Worth <carl@...amperecomputing.com>
>
> The handle is essential for retrieving the AUX_EVENT of each CPU and is
> required in perf mode. It has been added to the coresight_path so that
> dependent devices can access it from the path when needed.
I'd still like to have the original command I used to trigger the bug in
the commit message. I really like having reproduction steps captured in
commit messages when I look back at commits in the future. So, that was:
perf record -e cs_etm//k -C 0-9 dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null
> /**
> * struct coresight_path - data needed by enable/disable path
> - * @path_list: path from source to sink.
> - * @trace_id: trace_id of the whole path.
> + * @path_list: path from source to sink.
> + * @trace_id: trace_id of the whole path.
> + * struct perf_output_handle: handle of the aux_event.
> */
Fixing to "@handle" was mentioned in another comment already.
Something about the above still feels a little off to me. It feels like
we're throwing new data into a structure just because it happens to be
conveniently at hand for the code paths we're needing, and not because
it really _belongs_ there.
Or, maybe it's the right place for it, and the cause of my concern is
that "path" is an overly-narrow name in struct coresight_path?
But if a renaming of this structure would improve the code, I'd also be
fine with that happening in a subsequent commit, so I won't try to hold
up the current series based on that.
-Carl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists