From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com (Jan Glauber) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:39:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: perf: Basic uncore counter support for Cavium ThunderX SOC In-Reply-To: <20161110165405.GH4418@leverpostej> References: <73173d6ad2430eead5e9da40564a90a60961b6d9.1477741719.git.jglauber@cavium.com> <20161110165405.GH4418@leverpostej> Message-ID: <20161111103921.GE16907@hardcore> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Mark, thanks for reviewing. One question below, for most of your other comments I think we need to come to a conclusion about the aggregation first. On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 04:54:06PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi Jan, > > Apologies for the delay in getting to this. > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 01:55:29PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..a7b4277 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/drivers/perf/uncore/uncore_cavium.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,351 @@ > > +/* > > + * Cavium Thunder uncore PMU support. > > + * > > + * Copyright (C) 2015,2016 Cavium Inc. > > + * Author: Jan Glauber > > + */ > > + > > +#include > > +#include > > +#include > > I believe the following includes are necessary for APIs and/or data > explicitly referenced by the driver code: > > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > > #include > > ... please add those here. Should I also add includes that are already in the included by uncore_cavium.h? I usually avoid includes that come through the "local" header file.