Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:49:31 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 05/19] arm64: Add support for trace synchronization barrier |
| |
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.
Thanks,
M.
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |