Re: [PATCH V2 04/15] coresight: tmc: introducing new header file

[Mathieu Poirier]

On 15 April 2016 at 10:08, Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 15/04/16 17:03, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>
>> On 14 April 2016 at 11:33, Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@xxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/04/16 18:54, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The amount of #define, enumeration and structure definition
>>>> is big enough to justify moving them to a new header file.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +/* TMC_STS - 0x00C */
>>>> +#define TMC_STS_TRIGGERED      BIT(1)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +#define TMC_AXICTL_WR_BURST_LEN 0xF00
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nit: The value above signifies, 16 data transfers per burst.
>>> So ideally it would be good to rename it to reflect that. say,
>>>
>>> TMC_AXICTL_WR_BURST_16
>>
>>
>> Will do.  But I'll have to do this in a separate patch then the
>> grouping of STS_ and FFCR_ defines you're referring to below since it
>> will also require changes to the .c files.
>
>
> Yes, I don't expect this change to be part of the patch. Separate patch
> is fine.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +/* TMC_FFCR - 0x304 */
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_EN_FMT                BIT(0)
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_EN_TI         BIT(1)
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_FON_FLIN      BIT(4)
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_FON_TRIG_EVT  BIT(5)
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_FLUSHMAN      BIT(6)
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_TRIGON_TRIGIN BIT(8)
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_STOP_ON_FLUSH BIT(12)
>>>> +
>>>> +#define TMC_STS_TMCREADY_BIT   2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> +#define TMC_FFCR_FLUSHMAN_BIT  6
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> nit: It would be nice to group the STS_ and FFCR_ bits together.
>>> Also I see that the defintion for
>>> TMC_STS_FULL is added in a completely unrelated patch (TMC-ETF AUX SPACE
>>> patch ?). It would be good to add it either here or in a different patch.
>>
>>
>> TMC_STS_FULL is not added here because at this point it is not used by
>> the code - it is only added later when it is useful.
>
>
> I agree. But the patch which introduces the definition doesn't deal with
> TMC_STS_ at all either.

Patch 13/15 is using the TMC_STS_FULL define on line 147.  Am I
missing your point?

>Thats why I said, either here or in a different
> patch
> than what is there. May be you could club the change above and the STS_FULL
> into a new single patch. Its not mandatory though.
>
> Suzuki