[PATCH] drivers: CCI: add ARM CCI PMU support

[punit.agrawal@arm.com (Punit Agrawal)]

On 15/08/13 17:25, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>
>> Hi Kumar,
>>
>> Thanks for a review of the bindings.
>>
>> On 14/08/13 22:03, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 4:19 AM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>>
>>>> The CCI PMU can profile bus transactions at the master and slave
>>>> interfaces of the CCI. The PMU can be used to observe an aggregated view
>>>> of the bus traffic between the various components connected to the CCI.
>>>>
>>>> Extend the existing CCI driver to support the PMU by registering a perf
>>>> backend for it.
>>>>
>>>> Document the device tree binding to describe the CCI PMU.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt |   38 ++
>>>> drivers/bus/arm-cci.c                         |  642 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 680 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt
>>>> index 92d36e2..5bc95e5 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt
>>>> @@ -79,6 +79,34 @@ specific to ARM.
>>>> 				    corresponding interface programming
>>>> 				    registers.
>>>>
>>>> +	- CCI PMU node
>>>> +
>>>> +		Node name must be "pmu".
>>>> +		Parent node must be CCI interconnect node.
>>>> +
>>>> +		A CCI pmu node must contain the following properties:
>>>> +
>>>> +		- compatible
>>>> +			Usage: required
>>>> +			Value type: <string>
>>>> +			Definition: must be set to one of
>>>> +				    "arm,cci-400-pmu"
>>>> +				    "arm,cci-400-pmu,rev0"
>>>> +				    "arm,cci-400-pmu,rev1"
>>>
>>> Do you really mean only one?  Seems like ""arm,cci-400-pmu,rev0", "arm,cci-400-pmu" would be valid.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... yes both would be valid. But...
>>
>> The event numbering scheme changed between Rev 0 and Rev 1 of the CCI. If the revision is specified then it is used to get the event ranges to validate the events. If not, i.e., "arm,cci-400-pmu" is used, then the driver tries to find the the revision by reading the peripheral id registers.
>>
>> I was trying to make the bindings robust in the face of change in behaviour between different revisons of the IP.
>
> If there is a periph id register why bother with the device tree having different version info in it?
>

The different version strings are useful when the identification 
registers are either incorrect or broken.

But I am not aware of any such platforms currently out there. I can 
remove the additional compatible strings and rely on the peripheral id 
register solely. Do you prefer that?

Cheers,
Punit

> - k
>