[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK9=C2U9FV6crTL1G2X6tUM=RyRnPBm1dPeFc29n3vmrFTcfHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 12:09:23 +0530
From: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Liang Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Mayuresh Chitale <mchitale@...il.com>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@...ux.dev>, Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>,
Sunil V L <sunilvl@...tanamicro.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Linux RISC-V trace framework and drivers
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 11:56 AM Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 11:37:21AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > This series adds initial support for RISC-V trace framework and drivers.
> > The RISC-V trace v1.0 specification is already ratified and can be found at:
> > https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/e-trace-encap/releases/tag/v1.0.0-ratified
> > https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/tg-nexus-trace/releases/tag/1.0_Ratified
> >
> > The RISC-V trace framework and drivers are designed to be agnostic to the
> > underlying trace protocol hence both RISC-V E-trace and RISC-V N-trace should
> > work fine. The discovery of trace protocl parameters are left to user-space
> > trace decoder.
> >
> > In ther future, there will be subsequent series adding:
> > 1) Sysfs support
>
> why does "trace" need sysfs support? No other cpu platform uses that
> today, so why is a new user/kernel api needed?
We saw trace support for other architectures (e.g. ARM coresight) allowing
trace start/stop through sysfs. If this is an obsolete or not preferred approach
then we will deprioritize and possibly never add it.
Regards,
Anup
Powered by blists - more mailing lists