On 09/18/2020 04:35 PM, Mike Leach wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 09:41, Suzuki K Poulose suzuki.poulose@arm.com wrote:
Document the bindings for ETMv4.4 and later with only system register access.
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: Mathieu Poirier mathieu.poirier@linaro.org Cc: Mike Leach mike.leach@linaro.org Reviewed-by: Rob Herring robh@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose suzuki.poulose@arm.com
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt index d711676b4a51..cfe47bdda728 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/coresight.txt @@ -34,9 +34,13 @@ its hardware characteristcs. Program Flow Trace Macrocell: "arm,coresight-etm3x", "arm,primecell";
- Embedded Trace Macrocell (version 4.x):
- Embedded Trace Macrocell (version 4.x), with memory mapped access. "arm,coresight-etm4x", "arm,primecell";- Embedded Trace Macrocell (version 4.4 and later) with systemregister access only."arm,coresight-etm-v4.4";Any version of ETM can implement register access - including those pre ETM 4.4. Perhaps the new name should simply reflect sys reg access rather than a version.
You're right. I got it confused with the v8.4 SelfHosted Extensions, which mandates the sysreg access and makes the mem I/O obsolete. How about :
"arm,coresight-etm4x-sysreg" ?
Given that the two compatibility strings should be mutually exclusive for a given device, should the bindings doc (or at least the etm4x component part) be re-written into the .yaml format so that this can be enforced?
I will take a look, haven't played with the yaml.
Thanks for the review !
Suzuki