From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] arm-cci400: PMU monitoring support on ARM64
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:00:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F5DA8C.7080609@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1425295754-13376-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
On 02/03/15 11:29, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>
> This series enables the PMU monitoring support for CCI400 on ARM64.
> The existing CCI400 driver code is a mix of PMU driver and the MCPM
> driver code. The MCPM driver is only used on ARM(32) and contains
> arm32 assembly and hence can't be built on ARM64. This patch splits
> the code to
>
> - ARM_CCI400_PORT_CTRL driver - depends on ARM && V7
> - ARM_CCI400_PMU driver
>
> Accessing the Peripheral ID2 register(PID2) on CCI-400, to detect
> the revision of the chipset, is a secure operation. Hence, it prevents
> us from running this on non-secure platforms. The issue is overcome by
> explicitly mentioning the revision number of the CCI PMU in the device tree
> binding. The device-tree binding has been updated with the new bindings.
>
> i.e, arm-cci-400-pmu,r0 => revision 0
> arm-cci-400-pmu,r1 => revision 1
> arm-cci-400-pmu => (old) DEPRECATED
>
> The old binding has been DEPRECATED and must be used only on ARM32
> system with secure access. We don't have a reliable dynamic way to detect
> if the system is running secure. This series tries to use the best safe
> method by relying on the availability of MCPM(as it was prior to the series).
> It is upto the MCPM platform driver to decide, if the system is secure before
> it goes ahead and registers its drivers and pokes the CCI. This series doesn't
> address/solve the problem of MCPM. I will be happy to use a better approach,
> if there is any.
>
> Tested on (non-secure)TC2 and Juno.
>
For the series:
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on secure/MCPM TC2)
Regards,
Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
To: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org"
<linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
"nico-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org"
<nico-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
"b.zolnierkie-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org"
<b.zolnierkie-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
"kgene-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org"
<kgene-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
"a.kesavan-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org"
<a.kesavan-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>,
"arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org"
<arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org>,
"devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
"linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi
<Lorenzo.Pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
"olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org"
<olof-nZhT3qVonbNeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>,
Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] arm-cci400: PMU monitoring support on ARM64
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:00:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F5DA8C.7080609@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1425295754-13376-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
On 02/03/15 11:29, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
>
> This series enables the PMU monitoring support for CCI400 on ARM64.
> The existing CCI400 driver code is a mix of PMU driver and the MCPM
> driver code. The MCPM driver is only used on ARM(32) and contains
> arm32 assembly and hence can't be built on ARM64. This patch splits
> the code to
>
> - ARM_CCI400_PORT_CTRL driver - depends on ARM && V7
> - ARM_CCI400_PMU driver
>
> Accessing the Peripheral ID2 register(PID2) on CCI-400, to detect
> the revision of the chipset, is a secure operation. Hence, it prevents
> us from running this on non-secure platforms. The issue is overcome by
> explicitly mentioning the revision number of the CCI PMU in the device tree
> binding. The device-tree binding has been updated with the new bindings.
>
> i.e, arm-cci-400-pmu,r0 => revision 0
> arm-cci-400-pmu,r1 => revision 1
> arm-cci-400-pmu => (old) DEPRECATED
>
> The old binding has been DEPRECATED and must be used only on ARM32
> system with secure access. We don't have a reliable dynamic way to detect
> if the system is running secure. This series tries to use the best safe
> method by relying on the availability of MCPM(as it was prior to the series).
> It is upto the MCPM platform driver to decide, if the system is secure before
> it goes ahead and registers its drivers and pokes the CCI. This series doesn't
> address/solve the problem of MCPM. I will be happy to use a better approach,
> if there is any.
>
> Tested on (non-secure)TC2 and Juno.
>
For the series:
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> (on secure/MCPM TC2)
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
"nico@linaro.org" <nico@linaro.org>,
"b.zolnierkie@samsung.com" <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
"kgene@kernel.org" <kgene@kernel.org>,
"a.kesavan@samsung.com" <a.kesavan@samsung.com>,
"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@arm.com>,
"olof@lixom.net" <olof@lixom.net>,
Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] arm-cci400: PMU monitoring support on ARM64
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:00:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F5DA8C.7080609@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1425295754-13376-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
On 02/03/15 11:29, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>
> This series enables the PMU monitoring support for CCI400 on ARM64.
> The existing CCI400 driver code is a mix of PMU driver and the MCPM
> driver code. The MCPM driver is only used on ARM(32) and contains
> arm32 assembly and hence can't be built on ARM64. This patch splits
> the code to
>
> - ARM_CCI400_PORT_CTRL driver - depends on ARM && V7
> - ARM_CCI400_PMU driver
>
> Accessing the Peripheral ID2 register(PID2) on CCI-400, to detect
> the revision of the chipset, is a secure operation. Hence, it prevents
> us from running this on non-secure platforms. The issue is overcome by
> explicitly mentioning the revision number of the CCI PMU in the device tree
> binding. The device-tree binding has been updated with the new bindings.
>
> i.e, arm-cci-400-pmu,r0 => revision 0
> arm-cci-400-pmu,r1 => revision 1
> arm-cci-400-pmu => (old) DEPRECATED
>
> The old binding has been DEPRECATED and must be used only on ARM32
> system with secure access. We don't have a reliable dynamic way to detect
> if the system is running secure. This series tries to use the best safe
> method by relying on the availability of MCPM(as it was prior to the series).
> It is upto the MCPM platform driver to decide, if the system is secure before
> it goes ahead and registers its drivers and pokes the CCI. This series doesn't
> address/solve the problem of MCPM. I will be happy to use a better approach,
> if there is any.
>
> Tested on (non-secure)TC2 and Juno.
>
For the series:
Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> (on secure/MCPM TC2)
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-03 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-02 11:29 [PATCH v2 0/5] arm-cci400: PMU monitoring support on ARM64 Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` [PATCH 1/5] arm-cci: Rearrange code for splitting PMU vs driver code Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-03 15:35 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-03 15:35 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-04 12:16 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-04 12:16 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-04 12:16 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm-cci: Abstract the CCI400 PMU speicific definitions Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm-cci: Get rid of secure transactions for PMU driver Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-03 15:44 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-03 15:44 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-04 17:52 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-04 17:52 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` [PATCH 4/5] arm-cci: Split the code for PMU vs driver support Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-03 15:53 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-03 15:53 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-03 15:53 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-04 12:18 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-04 12:18 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` [PATCH 5/5] arm-cci: Fix CCI PMU event validation Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-02 11:29 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-03 16:00 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2015-03-03 16:00 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] arm-cci400: PMU monitoring support on ARM64 Sudeep Holla
2015-03-03 16:00 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-03-04 12:17 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-04 12:17 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54F5DA8C.7080609@arm.com \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.