On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:01 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Yabin,
On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 06:21:59PM -0700, Yabin Cui wrote:
[...]
@@ -486,12 +491,17 @@ static int catu_disable_hw(struct catu_drvdata *drvdata)
static int catu_disable(struct coresight_device *csdev, void *__unused)
{
- int rc;
+ int rc = 0;
struct catu_drvdata *catu_drvdata = csdev_to_catu_drvdata(csdev);
+ guard(raw_spinlock_irqsave)(&catu_drvdata->spinlock);
- CS_UNLOCK(catu_drvdata->base);
- rc = catu_disable_hw(catu_drvdata);
- CS_LOCK(catu_drvdata->base);
+ if (--csdev->refcnt == 0) {
+ CS_UNLOCK(catu_drvdata->base);
+ rc = catu_disable_hw(catu_drvdata);
+ CS_LOCK(catu_drvdata->base);
+ } else {
+ rc = -EBUSY;
This is not an error if the decremented reference counter is not zero.
It should return 0. Otherwise, the change looks good to me.
In coresight_disable_helpers(), the return value of catu_disable()
isn't checked.
The -EBUSY return was used for consistency with other refcounted
disable functions
like tmc_disable_etf_sink() and tmc_disable_etr_sink(). I'm happy to
change it back
to 0 if you believe that would be the more accurate return value here.
Thanks,
Leo