[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [27]   [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

On 2020/5/27 22:34, John Garry wrote:
>>>>> 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.
> BTW, Shaokun now tells me that the HiSi uncore PMU HW have such registers to identify the implementation. I didn't know.

Right, we have this register which shows the PMU version.


> So we could add that identifier file for those PMUs as proof-of-concept, exposing that register.
> As for other PMUs which I'm interested in, again, future versions should have such registers to self-identify.
> So using something derived from the DT compat string would hopefully be the uncommon case.
> Cheers,
> John
> .

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-28 03:36    [W:0.048 / U:3.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site