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 v5 05/19] arm64: Add support for trace synchronization
 barrier
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        coresight@lists.linaro.org, mike.leach@linaro.org,
        leo.yan@linaro.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
References: <20210323120647.454211-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20210323120647.454211-6-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20210323182142.GA16080@arm.com>
 <7675ab71-c2ff-91e0-5728-fcb216ac1e0d@arm.com> <875z1gk6fo.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Message-ID: <1b5e5bb2-b89f-fa35-0a8b-8c5476cb9ff6@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:51:14 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <875z1gk6fo.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 24/03/2021 13:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:39:13 +0000,
> Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 23/03/2021 18:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> Hi Suzuki?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:06:33PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> tsb csync synchronizes the trace operation of instructions.
>>>> The instruction is a nop when FEAT_TRF is not implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>
>>> How do you plan to merge these patches? If they go via the coresight
>>> tree:
>>>
>>
>> Ideally all of this should go via the CoreSight tree to have the
>> dependencies solved at one place. But there are some issues :
>>
>> If this makes to 5.13 queue for CoreSight,
>>
>> 1) CoreSight next is based on rc2 at the moment and we have fixes gone
>> into rc3 and later, which this series will depend on. (We could move
>> the next tree forward to a later rc to solve this).
>>
>> 2) There could be conflicts with the kvmarm tree for the KVM host
>> changes (That has dependency on the TRBE definitions patch).
>>
>> If it doesn't make to 5.13 queue, it would be good to have this patch,
>> the TRBE defintions and the KVM host patches queued for 5.13 (not sure
>> if this is acceptable) and we could rebase the CoreSight changes on 5.13
>> and push it to next release.
>>
>> I am open for other suggestions.
>>
>> Marc, Mathieu,
>>
>> Thoughts ?
> 
> I was planning to take the first two patches in 5.12 as fixes (they
> are queued already, and would hopefully land in -rc5). If that doesn't
> fit with the plan, please let me know ASAP.

Marc,

I think it would be better to hold on pushing those patches until we 
have a clarity on how things will go.

Sorry for the confusion.

Kind regards
Suzuki

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
>