[PATCH 2/3] arm64: cpuinfo: add human readable CPU names to /proc/cpuinfo

Timur Tabi
2017-10-13T14:16:52Z

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com> wrote:
> In the interest of making things easier for humans to use, add a
> "CPU name" line to /proc/cpuinfo for each CPU that uses plain old
> words instead of hex values. For example, instead of printing only
> CPU implementer 0x43 and CPU part 0x0A1, print also "CPU name :
> Cavium ThunderX".
>
> Note that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible
> implementers or CPUs (I'm not even sure that is knowable); this patch
> is intentionally limited to only those willing to provide info in
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
>
> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> index e505007138eb..0b4261884862 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,61 @@ static const char *const hwcap_str[] = {
> NULL
> };
>
> +struct hw_part {
> + u16 id;
> + char *name;

const char *name ?

> +};
> +
> +static const struct hw_part arm_hw_part[] = {
> + { ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8, "AEMv8 Model" },

AEMv8?

> + { ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION, "Foundation Model" },
> + { ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57, "Cortex A57" },
> + { ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A53, "Cortex A53" },
> + { ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A73, "Cortex A73" },
> + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */

Since Potenza is an Applied Micro CPU, why is this comment here?

> +static const struct hw_part apm_hw_part[] = {
> + { APM_CPU_PART_POTENZA, "Potenza" },
> + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */
> +};
> +
> +static const struct hw_part brcm_hw_part[] = {
> + { BRCM_CPU_PART_VULCAN, "Vulcan" },
> + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */
> +};
> +
> +static const struct hw_part cavium_hw_part[] = {
> + { CAVIUM_CPU_PART_THUNDERX, "ThunderX" },
> + { CAVIUM_CPU_PART_THUNDERX_81XX, "ThunderX 81XX" },
> + { CAVIUM_CPU_PART_THUNDERX_83XX, "ThunderX 83XX" },
> + { (-1), "unknown" } /* Potenza == 0, unfortunately */
> +};
> +
> +static const struct hw_part qcom_hw_part[] = {
> + { QCOM_CPU_PART_FALKOR_V1, "Falkor v1" },

I guess we should upstream our other part IDs.

> + impl = (u8) MIDR_IMPLEMENTOR(midr);
> + for (j = 0; hw_implementer[j].id != 0; j++) {
> + if (hw_implementer[j].id == impl) {
> + seq_printf(m, "CPU name\t: %s ",
> + hw_implementer[j].name);
> + parts = hw_implementer[j].parts;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + if (hw_implementer[j].id == 0) {
> + seq_printf(m, "CPU name\t: %s ",
> + hw_implementer[j].name);
> + parts = hw_implementer[j].parts;
> + }

Is this intended to handle Potenza? I don't understand why a part ID
of 0 is such a problem.

--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.