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;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
Cc:     mikey@neuling.org, apopple@linux.ibm.com,
        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@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/10] powerpc/watchpoint: Return available watchpoints dynamically
In-Reply-To: <ccfcf488-0ec9-1737-8368-a848de1d72d1@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>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:36:54 +1000
Message-ID: <87k0yxrtex.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 7/20/20 9:12 AM, Jordan Niethe wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:11 PM Ravi Bangoria
>> <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So far Book3S Powerpc supported only one watchpoint. Power10 is
>>> introducing 2nd DAWR. Enable 2nd DAWR support for Power10.
>>> Availability of 2nd DAWR will depend on CPU_FTR_DAWR1.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h      | 4 +++-
>>>   arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 +++--
>>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>> index 3445c86e1f6f..36a0851a7a9b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
>>> @@ -633,7 +633,9 @@ enum {
>>>    * Maximum number of hw breakpoint supported on powerpc. Number of
>>>    * breakpoints supported by actual hw might be less than this.
>>>    */
>>> -#define HBP_NUM_MAX    1
>>> +#define HBP_NUM_MAX    2
>>> +#define HBP_NUM_ONE    1
>>> +#define HBP_NUM_TWO    2

>> I wonder if these defines are necessary - has it any advantage over
>> just using the literal?
>
> No, not really. Initially I had something like:
>
> #define HBP_NUM_MAX    2
> #define HBP_NUM_P8_P9  1
> #define HBP_NUM_P10    2
>
> But then I thought it's also not right. So I made it _ONE and _TWO.
> Now the function that decides nr watchpoints dynamically (nr_wp_slots)
> is in different file, I thought to keep it like this so it would be
> easier to figure out why _MAX is 2.

I don't think it makes anything clearer.

I had to stare at it thinking there was some sort of mapping or
indirection going on, before I realised it's just literally the number
of breakpoints.

So please just do:

static inline int nr_wp_slots(void)
{
       return cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_DAWR1) ? 2 : 1;
}

If you think HBP_NUM_MAX needs explanation then do that with a comment,
it can refer to nr_wp_slots() if that's helpful.

cheers