[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] arm: add a /proc/cpuinfo platform extension
    H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
    > On Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:30 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote:
    >> H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
    >>> Add an optional platform specific extension to /proc/cpuinfo.
    >>> Many platforms have custom cpu information that could be exposed
    >>> to user space using /proc/cpuinfo.
    >>> Patch 1/2 adds the necessary core support to allow a platform
    >>> specific callback to dump this information.
    >>> Patch 2/2 adds a callback to mach-ep93xx and hooks up all the
    >>> edb93xx platforms.
    >>> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <>
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
    >> I think this is unlikely to get merged in its current state. Russell has
    >> mentioned issues with breaking userspace by changing /proc/cpuinfo.
    > I don't agree with this point.


    > Even something as trivial as the BogoMIPS is in a different place in
    > the two outputs and is spelled differently (due to caps).
    > The outputs are completely different. Other architectures in
    > mainline also have very different outputs.
    > I can't see any reason why adding additional fields will break
    > user space, as long as an existing heading in the output is not
    > duplicated. Even that "really" shouldn't break anything since
    > any application parsing this file has to do it sequentially and
    > the new headings are located at the end of the file.

    I'm really not sure. There may be some crappy userspace tools out there
    which will break. I don't really mind either way if the info goes in
    /proc/cpuinfo, or some new /proc/archinfo, just as long as it doesn't
    break userspace in some way.

    >> The other problem I see is that you have a single callback for registering
    >> the arch specific information. In you ep93xx example, each of the ep93xx
    >> boards must add:
    >> .arch_cpuinfo = ep93xx_cpuinfo,
    >> If one of the boards has some additional information to make available,
    >> it would need to reimplement the entire callback, which gets messy.
    > Not necessarily.
    > If a board, such as the ts72xx, wanted to add additional information
    > it just has to register it's private callback then call the ep93xx core
    > supplied callback at the desired point in it's private one.
    > The ts72xx currently does this exact thing with the .map_io callback.
    > It supplies it's own private one to map the external FPGA. It first calls
    > the ep93xx core to map the ahb/apb space then it does an iotable_init to
    > map the FPGA.

    Okay, fair point. I still don't like having the seq_file callback being
    in machine_desc. It means that all of the board files have to be edited
    to add the callback. It should be something which happens automagically
    in the platform core. Perhaps using a weak function for the callback, or
    a #define check.


    Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre

    Ryan Mallon 5 Amuri Park, 404 Barbadoes St PO Box 13 889, Christchurch 8013 New Zealand
    Phone: +64 3 3779127 Freecall: Australia 1800 148 751
    Fax: +64 3 3779135 USA 1800 261 2934

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-03-23 23:03    [W:0.024 / U:139.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site