Messages in this thread | | | From | Timur Tabi <> | Date | Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:16:52 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: cpuinfo: add human readable CPU names to /proc/cpuinfo |
| |
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> wrote: > In the interest of making things easier for humans to use, add a > "CPU name" line to /proc/cpuinfo for each CPU that uses plain old > words instead of hex values. For example, instead of printing only > CPU implementer 0x43 and CPU part 0x0A1, print also "CPU name : > Cavium ThunderX". > > Note that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible > implementers or CPUs (I'm not even sure that is knowable); this patch > is intentionally limited to only those willing to provide info in > arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h > > Signed-off-by: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c > index e505007138eb..0b4261884862 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c > @@ -75,6 +75,61 @@ static const char *const hwcap_str[] = { > NULL > }; > > +struct hw_part { > + u16 id; > + char *name;
const char *name ?
> +}; > + > +static const struct hw_part arm_hw_part[] = { > + { ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8, "AEMv8 Model" },
AEMv8?
> + { ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION, "Foundation Model" }, > + { ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57, "Cortex A57" }, > + { ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A53, "Cortex A53" }, > + { ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A73, "Cortex A73" }, > + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */
Since Potenza is an Applied Micro CPU, why is this comment here?
> +static const struct hw_part apm_hw_part[] = { > + { APM_CPU_PART_POTENZA, "Potenza" }, > + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */ > +}; > + > +static const struct hw_part brcm_hw_part[] = { > + { BRCM_CPU_PART_VULCAN, "Vulcan" }, > + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */ > +}; > + > +static const struct hw_part cavium_hw_part[] = { > + { CAVIUM_CPU_PART_THUNDERX, "ThunderX" }, > + { CAVIUM_CPU_PART_THUNDERX_81XX, "ThunderX 81XX" }, > + { CAVIUM_CPU_PART_THUNDERX_83XX, "ThunderX 83XX" }, > + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */ > +}; > + > +static const struct hw_part qcom_hw_part[] = { > + { QCOM_CPU_PART_FALKOR_V1, "Falkor v1" },
I guess we should upstream our other part IDs.
> + impl = (u8) MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR(midr); > + for (j = 0; hw_implementer[j].id != 0; j++) { > + if (hw_implementer[j].id == impl) { > + seq_printf(m, "CPU name\t: %s ", > + hw_implementer[j].name); > + parts = hw_implementer[j].parts; > + break; > + } > + } > + if (hw_implementer[j].id == 0) { > + seq_printf(m, "CPU name\t: %s ", > + hw_implementer[j].name); > + parts = hw_implementer[j].parts; > + }
Is this intended to handle Potenza? I don't understand why a part ID of 0 is such a problem.
-- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
| |