lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V1 RESEND 1/3] perf/imx_ddr: Add system PMU identifier for userspace
From
Date
On 21/05/2020 14:04, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 09:23:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 1:33 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:51:25PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:31:13PM +0800, Joakim Zhang wrote:
>>>>> +static ssize_t ddr_perf_identifier_show(struct device *dev,
>>>>> + struct device_attribute *attr,
>>>>> + char *page)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct ddr_pmu *pmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return sprintf(page, "%s\n", pmu->devtype_data->identifier);
>>>>
>>>> Why do we need yet another way to identify the SoC from userspace?
>>>
>>> I also really dislike this. What's the preferred way to identify the SoC
>>> from userspace?
>>
>> /proc/cpuinfo? ;)
>
> The *SoC*!
>
>> For an non-firmware specific case, I'd say soc_device should be. I'd
>> guess ACPI systems don't use it and for them it's dmidecode typically.
>> The other problem I have with soc_device is it is optional.
>

Hi Will,

> John -- what do you think about using soc_device to expose this information,
> with ACPI systems using DMI data instead?

Generally I don't think that DMI is reliable, and I saw this as the
least preferred choice. I'm looking at the sysfs DMI info for my dev
board, and I don't even see anything like a SoC identifier.

As for the event_source device sysfs identifier file, it would not
always contain effectively the same as the SoC ID.

Certain PMUs which I'm interested in plan to have probe-able
identification info available in future.

Thanks,
John



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-21 16:01    [W:0.057 / U:0.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site