On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:36:40AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
On 13/03/2025 2:54 pm, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:39:38AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
[...]
static inline bool coresight_is_claimed_any(struct coresight_device *csdev) {
return coresight_read_claim_tags(csdev) != 0;
return coresight_read_claim_tags(&csdev->access) != 0;Likewise other claim functions, can coresight_is_claimed_any() change its argument type from struct coresight_device to struct csdev_access?
I only wanted to change the ones that I had to. I think we should prioritize passing csdev as much as possible in the coresight framework to make everything consistent. Otherwise it's extra churn for no benefit, and if we need something from csdev here in the future we'll have to change this one back again.
The function coresight_is_claimed_any() has been deleted in a later patch. So this is fine for me.
In theory, claim tags are low level operations and don't need a CoreSight device context, I prefer we can keep them as simple as possible.
With this series, we can see coresight_claim_device() and coresight_disclaim_device() are inconsistent for their parameters: one is using "struct coresight_device *" and another is "struct csdev_access *". Maybe we just proceed to use csdev_access for all claim tag functions?
If later we need to use a CoreSight device context when operating claim tags, it means we might have different scenarios and we can handle that separately.
Thanks, Leo