[PATCH v7 25/25] coresight: allow the coresight core driver to be built as a module

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 08/05/2020 05:29 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 08/05/2020 03:54 AM, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
>> Enhance coresight developer's efficiency to debug coresight drivers.
>> - Kconfig becomes a tristate, to allow =m
>> - append -core to source file name to allow module to
>>    be called coresight by the Makefile
>> - modules can have only one init/exit, so we add the etm_perf
>>    register/unregister function calls to the core init/exit
>>    functions.
>> - add a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE for autoloading on boot
>>
>> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier at linaro.org>
>> Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan at linaro.org>
>> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin at linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap at infradead.org>
>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose at arm.com>
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>
>> Cc: Russell King <linux at armlinux.org.uk>
>> Signed-off-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips at arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tingwei Zhang <tingwei at codeaurora.org>
>> Tested-by: Mike Leach <mike.leach at linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Kconfig           |  5 ++-
>>   drivers/hwtracing/coresight/Makefile          |  5 ++-
>>   .../{coresight.c => coresight-core.c}         | 42 ++++++++++++++-----
>>   .../hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.c  |  8 +++-
>>   .../hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etm-perf.h  |  3 ++
>>   5 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>   rename drivers/hwtracing/coresight/{coresight.c => coresight-core.c} 
>> (98%)
> 
> Personally, I would like to rename this to core.c dropping the
> "coresight-" prefix here (now that we have to do a rename). And we
> should do that ideally for all the other files (but not proposing
> it to be part of this series, and could be something that we could
> pursue if everyone agrees to it).
> 
> We are inside the coresight directory anyways and having a prefix
> doesn't help with anything.
> 
> The patch as such looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com>

On a second look, I believe for the sake of completion, we
should set the "owner" of the etm, now that we are a module.
The question is, which one should that be. It could be the
"coresight" or the "coresight-etm{3,4}x".

I believe the "coresight" is the better choice.

Cheers
Suzuki