Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] powerpc/watchpoint: Return available watchpoints
 dynamically
To:     Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, mikey@neuling.org,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>,
        naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        jolsa@kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, pedromfc@br.ibm.com, miltonm@us.ibm.com,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20200717040958.70561-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200717040958.70561-10-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
 <CACzsE9r0acLUkV35mVxy1AEK_xObs0yz+fD6UdbNdc6uz=Buqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ccfcf488-0ec9-1737-8368-a848de1d72d1@linux.ibm.com>
 <CACzsE9q5YtT_bXOpw9cri_UCxziW_FRbCpcViANaZwui0hjDqw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <a439dff1-2a61-8378-d510-af754ed746ec@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:45:58 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACzsE9q5YtT_bXOpw9cri_UCxziW_FRbCpcViANaZwui0hjDqw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


>>>> @@ -46,7 +47,7 @@ struct arch_hw_breakpoint {
>>>>
>>>>    static inline int nr_wp_slots(void)
>>>>    {
>>>> -       return HBP_NUM_MAX;
>>>> +       return cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_DAWR1) ? HBP_NUM_TWO : HBP_NUM_ONE;
>>> So it'd be something like:
>>> +       return cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_DAWR1) ? HBP_NUM_MAX : 1;
>>> But thinking that there might be more slots added in the future, it
>>> may be better to make the number of slots a variable that is set
>>> during the init and then have this function return that.
>>
>> Not sure I follow. What do you mean by setting number of slots a
>> variable that is set during the init?
> Sorry I was unclear there.
> I was just looking and saw arm also has a variable number of hw breakpoints.
> If we did something like how they handle it, it might look something like:
> 
> static int num_wp_slots __ro_after_init;
> 
> int nr_wp_slots(void) {
>      return num_wp_slots;
> }
> 
> static int __init arch_hw_breakpoint_init(void) {
>      num_wp_slots = work out how many wp_slots
> }
> arch_initcall(arch_hw_breakpoint_init);
> 
> Then we wouldn't have to calculate everytime nr_wp_slots() is called.
> In the future if more wp's are added nr_wp_slots() will get more complicated.
> But just an idea, feel free to ignore.

Ok I got the idea. But ARM arch_hw_breakpoint_init() is much more complex
compared to our nr_wp_slots(). I don't see any benefit by making our code
like ARM.

Thanks for the idea though :)
Ravi