Correct the property name of the DSB MSR number that needs to be
read in TPDM driver. The right property name is
"qcom,dsb-msrs-num".
This patch depends on patch series "Add support to configure TPDM DSB
subunit"
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/list/?series=788353
Signed-off-by: Tao Zhang <[email protected]>
---
drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
index b25284e..97654aa 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
@@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ static int tpdm_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
if (drvdata && tpdm_has_dsb_dataset(drvdata))
of_property_read_u32(drvdata->dev->of_node,
- "qcom,dsb_msr_num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
+ "qcom,dsb-msrs-num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
/* Set up coresight component description */
desc.name = coresight_alloc_device_name(&tpdm_devs, dev);
--
2.7.4
On 20/10/2023 04:51, Tao Zhang wrote:
> Correct the property name of the DSB MSR number that needs to be
> read in TPDM driver. The right property name is
> "qcom,dsb-msrs-num".
Missing Fixes tag.
>
> This patch depends on patch series "Add support to configure TPDM DSB
> subunit"
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/list/?series=788353
This is not suitable for commit msg. Dependencies are noted under ---.
And how is this depending on that patch? Your buggy code was applied
long time ago!
>
> Signed-off-by: Tao Zhang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
> index b25284e..97654aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
> @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ static int tpdm_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
>
> if (drvdata && tpdm_has_dsb_dataset(drvdata))
> of_property_read_u32(drvdata->dev->of_node,
> - "qcom,dsb_msr_num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
> + "qcom,dsb-msrs-num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
So you never tested your DTS... We can keep asking about this but still
testing does not happen :/
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 10/20/2023 2:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/10/2023 04:51, Tao Zhang wrote:
>> Correct the property name of the DSB MSR number that needs to be
>> read in TPDM driver. The right property name is
>> "qcom,dsb-msrs-num".
> Missing Fixes tag.
I will add it in the next patch.
>
>> This patch depends on patch series "Add support to configure TPDM DSB
>> subunit"
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/list/?series=788353
> This is not suitable for commit msg. Dependencies are noted under ---.
>
> And how is this depending on that patch? Your buggy code was applied
> long time ago!
Yes, no need to depend on the patch series and it has been applied. I
will remove this comments
in the next patch.
>> Signed-off-by: Tao Zhang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>> index b25284e..97654aa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>> @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ static int tpdm_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
>>
>> if (drvdata && tpdm_has_dsb_dataset(drvdata))
>> of_property_read_u32(drvdata->dev->of_node,
>> - "qcom,dsb_msr_num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
>> + "qcom,dsb-msrs-num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
> So you never tested your DTS... We can keep asking about this but still
> testing does not happen :/
Since this new property has not been applied on the exist upstream DTS,
I tested this driver with the
local DTS. Unfortunately, the property name in the local DTS is not
updated, this is why it is not found
in the tests.
Best,
Tao
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
On 20/10/2023 10:13, Tao Zhang wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>>> index b25284e..97654aa 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>>> @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ static int tpdm_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
>>>
>>> if (drvdata && tpdm_has_dsb_dataset(drvdata))
>>> of_property_read_u32(drvdata->dev->of_node,
>>> - "qcom,dsb_msr_num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
>>> + "qcom,dsb-msrs-num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
>> So you never tested your DTS... We can keep asking about this but still
>> testing does not happen :/
>
> Since this new property has not been applied on the exist upstream DTS,
> I tested this driver with the
>
> local DTS. Unfortunately, the property name in the local DTS is not
> updated, this is why it is not found
But your local DTS would not pass dtbs_check tests, so that's why I am
saying - you never tested it on mainline kernel.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 10/20/2023 4:59 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/10/2023 10:13, Tao Zhang wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>>>> index b25284e..97654aa 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-tpdm.c
>>>> @@ -892,7 +892,7 @@ static int tpdm_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const struct amba_id *id)
>>>>
>>>> if (drvdata && tpdm_has_dsb_dataset(drvdata))
>>>> of_property_read_u32(drvdata->dev->of_node,
>>>> - "qcom,dsb_msr_num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
>>>> + "qcom,dsb-msrs-num", &drvdata->dsb_msr_num);
>>> So you never tested your DTS... We can keep asking about this but still
>>> testing does not happen :/
>> Since this new property has not been applied on the exist upstream DTS,
>> I tested this driver with the
>>
>> local DTS. Unfortunately, the property name in the local DTS is not
>> updated, this is why it is not found
> But your local DTS would not pass dtbs_check tests, so that's why I am
> saying - you never tested it on mainline kernel.
Thanks, we will add this test in the future to ensure that DTS, doc and
driver are consistent.
Best,
Tao
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>