From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 07/10] arm: arm64: pmu: Assign platform PMU CPU affinity Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:48:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20160916154838.GA18914@arm.com> References: <1473892358-22574-1-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <1473892358-22574-8-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20160916132953.GR3380@arm.com> <8d76725a-507b-4d70-8aad-993ccfa488f6@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60220 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932432AbcIPPsi (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:48:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8d76725a-507b-4d70-8aad-993ccfa488f6@arm.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Linton Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, punit.agrawal@arm.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, mlangsdorf@redhat.com, steve.capper@arm.com On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:35:32AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > On 09/16/2016 08:29 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 05:32:35PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: > >>On systems with multiple PMU types the PMU to CPU affinity > >>needs to be detected and set. The CPU to interrupt affinity > >>should also be set. > >> > (trimming) > >> continue; > >> ret = info->init(pmu); > >>+ /* > >>+ * if this pmu declaration is unspecified and we have > >>+ * previously found a PMU on this platform then append > >>+ * a PMU number to the pmu name. This avoids changing > >>+ * the names of PMUs that are specific to a class of CPUs. > >>+ * The assumption is that if we match a specific PMU in the > >>+ * provided pmu_probe_info then it's unique, and another PMU > >>+ * in the system will match a different entry rather than > >>+ * needing the _number to assure its unique. > >>+ */ > >>+ if ((!info->cpuid) && (duplicate_pmus)) { > > > >Hmm, the duplicate_pmus check looks a little odd here. Doesn't it mean > >that you'd end up with things like: > > > >"arm,armv8-pmuv3" > >"arm,armv8-pmuv3_1" > > > >which looks needlessly fiddly to parse. Is this intentional? > > Well, IIRC, you recommend that format, or maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, per > the comment I'm trying to assure that legacy platform devices don't > accidentally get a "_X" appended to their name and break something. Ah, right, for the old 32-bit platforms that rely on probing, Gotcha. Will