Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] drivers/perf: riscv_pmu_sbi: add support for PMU variant on T-Head C9xx cores | Date | Tue, 30 Aug 2022 15:32:07 +0000 |
| |
On 30/08/2022 16:02, Heiko Stübner wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Am Dienstag, 30. August 2022, 16:33:27 CEST schrieb Heiko Stübner: >> Am Freitag, 26. August 2022, 19:57:33 CEST schrieb Conor.Dooley@microchip.com: >>> On 26/08/2022 17:35, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/errata/thead/errata.c b/arch/riscv/errata/thead/errata.c >>>> index 202c83f677b2..e6101eab25c8 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/riscv/errata/thead/errata.c >>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/errata/thead/errata.c >>>> @@ -44,6 +44,22 @@ static bool errata_probe_cmo(unsigned int stage, >>>> #endif >>>> } >>>> >>>> +static bool errata_probe_pmu(unsigned int stage, >>>> + unsigned long arch_id, unsigned long impid) >>>> +{ >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ERRATA_THEAD_PMU >>> >>> Is there a reason that all the alternatives use ifdef >>> rather than if(IS_ENABLED())? >> >> no real reason I guess - more like not enough thinking :-) >> >> Using IS_ENABLED also makes it way nicer as we can just do >> >> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ERRATA_THEAD_PMU)) >> return false; > > Though at least for the CMO this is not possible, as the > riscv_noncoherent_supported() > is not defined in that case. > > Though it might be nice to define a stub for the > not-CONFIG_RISCV_DMA_NONCOHERENT case > so that we don't need to #ifdef around it.
Personally, I really like IS_ENABLED() & stubs as all the code gets compile tested at the very least. Maybe that is a future work item though, no need to rework the world for this series...
I'd take up arms along side you though, if you decided to wage war on ifdefs-that-could-be-IS_ENABLED() ;)
Conor.
| |