On 19 April 2016 at 10:16, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 12/04/16 18:54, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>
>> This patch implement the AUX area interfaces required to
>> use the TMC (configured as an ETF) from the Perf sub-system.
>>
>> The heuristic is heavily borrowed from the ETB10 implementation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poir...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etf.c | 198
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc.h | 21 +++
>> 2 files changed, 219 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etf.c
>> b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etf.c
>> index a440784e3b27..fff175d4020d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etf.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tmc-etf.c
>> @@ -15,7 +15,9 @@
>> * this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> */
>>
>> +#include <linux/circ_buf.h>
>> #include <linux/coresight.h>
>> +#include <linux/perf_event.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> #include "coresight-priv.h"
>> #include "coresight-tmc.h"
>> @@ -295,9 +297,205 @@ static void tmc_disable_etf_link(struct
>> coresight_device *csdev,
>> dev_info(drvdata->dev, "TMC disabled\n");
>> }
>>
>> +static void *tmc_alloc_etf_buffer(struct coresight_device *csdev, int
>> cpu,
>> + void **pages, int nr_pages, bool
>> overwrite)
>
>
>
>
>> +
>> +static void tmc_free_etf_buffer(void *config)
>> +{
>
>
>> +
>> +static int tmc_set_etf_buffer(struct coresight_device *csdev,
>> + struct perf_output_handle *handle,
>> + void *sink_config)
>
>
>
>> +static unsigned long tmc_reset_etf_buffer(struct coresight_device *csdev,
>> + struct perf_output_handle
>> *handle,
>> + void *sink_config, bool *lost)
>> +{
>
>
>
>> /**
>> + * struct cs_buffer - keep track of a recording session' specifics
>> + * @cur: index of the current buffer
>> + * @nr_pages: max number of pages granted to us
>> + * @offset: offset within the current buffer
>> + * @data_size: how much we collected in this run
>> + * @lost: other than zero if we had a HW buffer wrap around
>> + * @snapshot: is this run in snapshot mode
>> + * @data_pages: a handle the ring buffer
>> + */
>> +struct cs_tmc_buffers {
>> + unsigned int cur;
>> + unsigned int nr_pages;
>> + unsigned long offset;
>> + local_t data_size;
>> + local_t lost;
>> + bool snapshot;
>> + void **data_pages;
>> +};
>
>
>
> All of the above look exactly the same as what we have in etb10.c (as you
> have mentioned).
> Is there any chance we could reuse them under a generic name ?
I toyed with the idea many times...
Today the structures are similar and can be used in both drivers but
it is only a matter for time (probably months) before someone adds new
functionality on one side that isn't compatible with the other side.
When that happens we'll get a bloated struct with fields that aren't
used, depending on where it gets instantiated. Or the struct will be
split again, coming back to what we have today.
>
>> +
>> +static void tmc_update_etf_buffer(struct coresight_device *csdev,
>
>
>
>> + * Get a hold of the status register and see if a wrap around
>> + * has occurred. If so adjust things accordingly.
>> + */
>> + status = readl_relaxed(drvdata->base + TMC_STS);
>> + if (status & TMC_STS_FULL) {
>> + local_inc(&buf->lost);
>> + to_read = drvdata->size;
>> + } else {
>> + to_read = CIRC_CNT(write_ptr, read_ptr, drvdata->size);
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The TMC RAM buffer may be bigger than the space available in
>> the
>> + * perf ring buffer (handle->size). If so advance the RRP so that
>> we
>> + * get the latest trace data.
>> + */
>> + if (to_read > handle->size) {
>> + u32 mask = 0;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The value written to RRP must be byte-address aligned
>> to
>> + * the width of the trace memory databus _and_ to a frame
>> + * boundary (16 byte), whichever is the biggest. For
>> example,
>> + * for 32-bit, 64-bit and 128-bit wide trace memory, the
>> four
>> + * LSBs must be 0s. For 256-bit wide trace memory, the
>> five
>> + * LSBs must be 0s.
>> + */
>> + switch (drvdata->memwidth) {
>> + case TMC_MEM_INTF_WIDTH_32BITS:
>> + case TMC_MEM_INTF_WIDTH_64BITS:
>> + case TMC_MEM_INTF_WIDTH_128BITS:
>> + mask = GENMASK(31, 5);
>> + break;
>> + case TMC_MEM_INTF_WIDTH_256BITS:
>> + mask = GENMASK(31, 6);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Make sure the new size is aligned in accordance with
>> the
>> + * requirement explained above.
>> + */
>> + to_read -= handle->size & mask;
>
>
> Shouldn't this be :
>
> to_read = handle->size & mask;
You are correct.
>
>> + /* Move the RAM read pointer up */
>> + read_ptr = (write_ptr + drvdata->size) - to_read;
>> + /* Make sure we are still within our limits */
>> + read_ptr &= ~(drvdata->size - 1);
>> + /* Tell the HW */
>> + writel_relaxed(read_ptr, drvdata->base + TMC_RRP);
>> + local_inc(&buf->lost);
>> + }
>
>
>
> Suzuki
