[PATCH V2 0/4] coresight: trbe: Enable ACPI based devices

[PATCH V2 0/4] coresight: trbe: Enable ACPI based devices

[Anshuman Khandual]

This series enables detection of ACPI based TRBE devices via a stand alone
purpose built representative platform device. But as a pre-requisite this
changes coresight_platform_data structure assignment for the TRBE device.

This series is based on v6.5-rc4 kernel, is also dependent on the following
EDK2 changes posted earlier by Sami.

https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107239
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107241

Changes in V2:

- Refactored arm_spe_acpi_register_device() in a separate patch
- Renamed trbe_acpi_resources as trbe_resources
- Renamed trbe_acpi_dev as trbe_dev

Changes in V1:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230728112733.359620-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/

Cc: Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>
Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Anshuman Khandual (4):
  arm_pmu: acpi: Refactor arm_spe_acpi_register_device()
  arm_pmu: acpi: Add a representative platform device for TRBE
  coresight: trbe: Add a representative coresight_platform_data for TRBE
  coresight: trbe: Enable ACPI based TRBE devices

 arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h                |   3 +
 drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c |  15 +-
 drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.h |   1 +
 drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c                  | 145 ++++++++++++++-----
 include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h                 |   1 +
 5 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)

-- 
2.25.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V2 1/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Refactor arm_spe_acpi_register_device()

[Anshuman Khandual]

Sanity checking all the GICC tables for same interrupt number, and ensuring
a homogeneous ACPI based machine, could be used for other platform devices
as well. Hence this refactors arm_spe_acpi_register_device() into a common
helper arm_acpi_register_pmu_device().

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Co-developed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
---
 drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
index 90815ad762eb..d9d5a7bbb92f 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
@@ -70,6 +70,68 @@ static void arm_pmu_acpi_unregister_irq(int cpu)
 }
 
 #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU)
+static int
+arm_acpi_register_pmu_device(struct platform_device *pdev, u8 len,
+			     u16 (*parse_gsi)(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *))
+{
+	int cpu, hetid, irq, ret;
+	bool matched = false;
+	u16 gsi = 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * Ensure that platform device must have IORESOURCE_IRQ
+	 * resource to hold gsi interrupt.
+	 */
+	if (pdev->num_resources != 1)
+		return -ENXIO;
+
+	if (pdev->resource[0].flags != IORESOURCE_IRQ)
+		return -ENXIO;
+
+	/*
+	 * Sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt
+	 * number. For now, only support homogeneous ACPI machines.
+	 */
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
+		u16 this_gsi;
+
+		gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
+		if (gicc->header.length < len)
+			return matched ? -ENXIO : 0;
+
+		this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);
+		if (!this_gsi)
+			return matched ? -ENXIO : 0;
+
+		if (!matched) {
+			hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
+			gsi = this_gsi;
+			matched = true;
+		} else if (hetid != find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu) ||
+			gsi != this_gsi) {
+			pr_warn("ACPI: %s: must be homogeneous\n", pdev->name);
+			return -ENXIO;
+		}
+	}
+
+	irq = acpi_register_gsi(NULL, gsi, ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE, ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH);
+	if (irq < 0) {
+		pr_warn("ACPI: %s Unable to register interrupt: %d\n", pdev->name, gsi);
+		return -ENXIO;
+	}
+
+	pdev->resource[0].start = irq;
+	ret = platform_device_register(pdev);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		pr_warn("ACPI: %s: Unable to register device\n", pdev->name);
+		acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
+	}
+	return ret;
+}
+#endif
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU
 static struct resource spe_resources[] = {
 	{
 		/* irq */
@@ -84,6 +146,11 @@ static struct platform_device spe_dev = {
 	.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(spe_resources)
 };
 
+static u16 arm_spe_parse_gsi(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc)
+{
+	return gicc->spe_interrupt;
+}
+
 /*
  * For lack of a better place, hook the normal PMU MADT walk
  * and create a SPE device if we detect a recent MADT with
@@ -91,47 +158,10 @@ static struct platform_device spe_dev = {
  */
 static void arm_spe_acpi_register_device(void)
 {
-	int cpu, hetid, irq, ret;
-	bool first = true;
-	u16 gsi = 0;
-
-	/*
-	 * Sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt number.
-	 * For now, we only support homogeneous ACPI/SPE machines.
-	 */
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
-
-		gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
-		if (gicc->header.length < ACPI_MADT_GICC_SPE)
-			return;
-
-		if (first) {
-			gsi = gicc->spe_interrupt;
-			if (!gsi)
-				return;
-			hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
-			first = false;
-		} else if ((gsi != gicc->spe_interrupt) ||
-			   (hetid != find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu))) {
-			pr_warn("ACPI: SPE must be homogeneous\n");
-			return;
-		}
-	}
-
-	irq = acpi_register_gsi(NULL, gsi, ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
-				ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH);
-	if (irq < 0) {
-		pr_warn("ACPI: SPE Unable to register interrupt: %d\n", gsi);
-		return;
-	}
-
-	spe_resources[0].start = irq;
-	ret = platform_device_register(&spe_dev);
-	if (ret < 0) {
+	int ret = arm_acpi_register_pmu_device(&spe_dev, ACPI_MADT_GICC_SPE,
+					       arm_spe_parse_gsi);
+	if (ret)
 		pr_warn("ACPI: SPE: Unable to register device\n");
-		acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
-	}
 }
 #else
 static inline void arm_spe_acpi_register_device(void)
-- 
2.25.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V2 2/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Add a representative platform device for TRBE

[Anshuman Khandual]

ACPI TRBE does not have a HID for identification which could create and add
a platform device into the platform bus. Also without a platform device, it
cannot be probed and bound to a platform driver.

This creates a dummy platform device for TRBE after ascertaining that ACPI
provides required interrupts uniformly across all cpus on the system. This
device gets created inside drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c to accommodate TRBE
being built as a module.

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |  3 +++
 drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c   | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h  |  1 +
 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index bd68e1b7f29f..4d537d56eb84 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -42,6 +42,9 @@
 #define ACPI_MADT_GICC_SPE  (offsetof(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, \
 	spe_interrupt) + sizeof(u16))
 
+#define ACPI_MADT_GICC_TRBE  (offsetof(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, \
+	trbe_interrupt) + sizeof(u16))
+
 /* Basic configuration for ACPI */
 #ifdef	CONFIG_ACPI
 pgprot_t __acpi_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr);
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
index d9d5a7bbb92f..1bcda26282fc 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static void arm_pmu_acpi_unregister_irq(int cpu)
 		acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
 }
 
-#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU)
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CORESIGHT_TRBE)
 static int
 arm_acpi_register_pmu_device(struct platform_device *pdev, u8 len,
 			     u16 (*parse_gsi)(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *))
@@ -169,6 +169,40 @@ static inline void arm_spe_acpi_register_device(void)
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU */
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_CORESIGHT_TRBE
+static struct resource trbe_resources[] = {
+	{
+		/* irq */
+		.flags          = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
+	}
+};
+
+static struct platform_device trbe_dev = {
+	.name = ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME,
+	.id = -1,
+	.resource = trbe_resources,
+	.num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(trbe_resources)
+};
+
+static u16 arm_trbe_parse_gsi(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc)
+{
+	return gicc->trbe_interrupt;
+}
+
+static void arm_trbe_acpi_register_device(void)
+{
+	int ret = arm_acpi_register_pmu_device(&trbe_dev, ACPI_MADT_GICC_TRBE,
+					       arm_trbe_parse_gsi);
+	if (ret)
+		pr_warn("ACPI: TRBE: Unable to register device\n");
+}
+#else
+static inline void arm_trbe_acpi_register_device(void)
+{
+
+}
+#endif /* CONFIG_CORESIGHT_TRBE */
+
 static int arm_pmu_acpi_parse_irqs(void)
 {
 	int irq, cpu, irq_cpu, err;
@@ -404,6 +438,7 @@ static int arm_pmu_acpi_init(void)
 		return 0;
 
 	arm_spe_acpi_register_device();
+	arm_trbe_acpi_register_device();
 
 	return 0;
 }
diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
index a0801f68762b..7ec26d21303d 100644
--- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
+++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
@@ -187,5 +187,6 @@ void armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu);
 #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_PMU */
 
 #define ARMV8_SPE_PDEV_NAME "arm,spe-v1"
+#define ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME "arm-trbe-acpi"
 
 #endif /* __ARM_PMU_H__ */
-- 
2.25.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V2 3/4] coresight: trbe: Add a representative coresight_platform_data for TRBE

[Anshuman Khandual]

TRBE coresight devices do not need regular connections information, as the
paths get built between all percpu source and their respective percpu sink
devices. Please refer 'commit 2cd87a7b293d ("coresight: core: Add support
for dedicated percpu sinks")' which added support for percpu sink devices.

coresight_register() expect device connections via the platform_data. TRBE
devices do not have any graph connections and thus is empty. With upcoming
ACPI support for TRBE, we do not get a real acpi_device and thus
coresight_get_platform_dat() will end up in failures. Hence this allocates
a zeroed coresight_platform_data structure and assigns that back into the
device.

Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>
Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
---
 drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
index 7720619909d6..e1d9d06e7725 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
@@ -1494,9 +1494,9 @@ static int arm_trbe_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	if (!drvdata)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	pdata = coresight_get_platform_data(dev);
-	if (IS_ERR(pdata))
-		return PTR_ERR(pdata);
+	pdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!pdata)
+		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	dev_set_drvdata(dev, drvdata);
 	dev->platform_data = pdata;
-- 
2.25.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V2 4/4] coresight: trbe: Enable ACPI based TRBE devices

[Anshuman Khandual]

This detects and enables ACPI based TRBE devices via the dummy platform
device created earlier for this purpose.

Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>
Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
---
 drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c | 9 +++++++++
 drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.h | 1 +
 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
index e1d9d06e7725..f884883e9018 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.c
@@ -1537,7 +1537,16 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_trbe_of_match[] = {
 };
 MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_trbe_of_match);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+static const struct platform_device_id arm_trbe_acpi_match[] = {
+	{ ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME, 0 },
+	{ }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, arm_trbe_acpi_match);
+#endif
+
 static struct platform_driver arm_trbe_driver = {
+	.id_table = arm_trbe_acpi_match,
 	.driver	= {
 		.name = DRVNAME,
 		.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(arm_trbe_of_match),
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.h b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.h
index 77cbb5c63878..94e67009848a 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.h
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-trbe.h
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #include <linux/irq.h>
 #include <linux/kernel.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/perf/arm_pmu.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 #include <linux/smp.h>
 
-- 
2.25.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Refactor arm_spe_acpi_register_device()

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:49PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Sanity checking all the GICC tables for same interrupt number, and ensuring
> a homogeneous ACPI based machine, could be used for other platform devices
> as well. Hence this refactors arm_spe_acpi_register_device() into a common
> helper arm_acpi_register_pmu_device().
> 
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Co-developed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
> index 90815ad762eb..d9d5a7bbb92f 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
> @@ -70,6 +70,68 @@ static void arm_pmu_acpi_unregister_irq(int cpu)
>  }
>  
>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU)
> +static int
> +arm_acpi_register_pmu_device(struct platform_device *pdev, u8 len,
> +			     u16 (*parse_gsi)(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *))
> +{
> +	int cpu, hetid, irq, ret;
> +	bool matched = false;
> +	u16 gsi = 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Ensure that platform device must have IORESOURCE_IRQ
> +	 * resource to hold gsi interrupt.
> +	 */
> +	if (pdev->num_resources != 1)
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +
> +	if (pdev->resource[0].flags != IORESOURCE_IRQ)
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt
> +	 * number. For now, only support homogeneous ACPI machines.
> +	 */
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> +		struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
> +		u16 this_gsi;
> +
> +		gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
> +		if (gicc->header.length < len)
> +			return matched ? -ENXIO : 0;
> +
> +		this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);
> +		if (!this_gsi)
> +			return matched ? -ENXIO : 0;

I think you can push this check into the conditional below...

> +
> +		if (!matched) {
> +			hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);

... i.e. add a:

			if (!this_gsi)
				return -ENXIO;

here.

> +			gsi = this_gsi;
> +			matched = true;

And then, come to think of it, can we get rid of 'matched' altogether?
Since a gsi of 0 is treated as invalid, we could just check that instead,
no? So this becomes:


		gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
		if (gicc->header.length < len)
			return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;

		this_hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
		this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);
		if (!gsi) {
			if (!this_gsi)
				return -ENXIO;
			gsi = this_gsi;
			hetid = this_hetid;
		} else if (hetid != this_hetid || gsi != this_gsi) {
			pr_warn("ACPI: %s: must be homogeneous\n", pdev->name);
			return -ENXIO;
		}


What do you reckon?

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Add a representative platform device for TRBE

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:50PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> index a0801f68762b..7ec26d21303d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> @@ -187,5 +187,6 @@ void armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu);
>  #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_PMU */
>  
>  #define ARMV8_SPE_PDEV_NAME "arm,spe-v1"
> +#define ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME "arm-trbe-acpi"

Why is the TRBE name formatted differently to the SPE one?

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 0/4] coresight: trbe: Enable ACPI based devices

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:48PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This series enables detection of ACPI based TRBE devices via a stand alone
> purpose built representative platform device. But as a pre-requisite this
> changes coresight_platform_data structure assignment for the TRBE device.
> 
> This series is based on v6.5-rc4 kernel, is also dependent on the following
> EDK2 changes posted earlier by Sami.
> 
> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107239
> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107241
> 
> Changes in V2:
> 
> - Refactored arm_spe_acpi_register_device() in a separate patch
> - Renamed trbe_acpi_resources as trbe_resources
> - Renamed trbe_acpi_dev as trbe_dev
> 
> Changes in V1:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230728112733.359620-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/
> 
> Cc: Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>
> Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
> Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

FYI: if you pass '--cc-cover' to git send-email, it will CC all these
folks on the series, which I think is better when you're reviewing stuff
(I didn't receive patches 3 and 4).

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 0/4] coresight: trbe: Enable ACPI based devices

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 8/1/23 20:22, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:48PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This series enables detection of ACPI based TRBE devices via a stand alone
>> purpose built representative platform device. But as a pre-requisite this
>> changes coresight_platform_data structure assignment for the TRBE device.
>>
>> This series is based on v6.5-rc4 kernel, is also dependent on the following
>> EDK2 changes posted earlier by Sami.
>>
>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107239
>> https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107241
>>
>> Changes in V2:
>>
>> - Refactored arm_spe_acpi_register_device() in a separate patch
>> - Renamed trbe_acpi_resources as trbe_resources
>> - Renamed trbe_acpi_dev as trbe_dev
>>
>> Changes in V1:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230728112733.359620-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com/
>>
>> Cc: Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@arm.com>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
>> Cc: coresight@lists.linaro.org
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> 
> FYI: if you pass '--cc-cover' to git send-email, it will CC all these
> folks on the series, which I think is better when you're reviewing stuff
> (I didn't receive patches 3 and 4).

My bad, forgot --cc-cover on the command line.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Add a representative platform device for TRBE

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 8/1/23 20:21, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:50PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>> index a0801f68762b..7ec26d21303d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>> @@ -187,5 +187,6 @@ void armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu);
>>  #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_PMU */
>>  
>>  #define ARMV8_SPE_PDEV_NAME "arm,spe-v1"
>> +#define ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME "arm-trbe-acpi"
> 
> Why is the TRBE name formatted differently to the SPE one?

Nothing specific, although "arm,spe-v1" seemed more like a DT naming
scheme. But could change the name as "arm,trbe-v1" to be in sync with
SPE here.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Refactor arm_spe_acpi_register_device()

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 8/1/23 20:19, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:49PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Sanity checking all the GICC tables for same interrupt number, and ensuring
>> a homogeneous ACPI based machine, could be used for other platform devices
>> as well. Hence this refactors arm_spe_acpi_register_device() into a common
>> helper arm_acpi_register_pmu_device().
>>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Co-developed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c | 110 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>  1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
>> index 90815ad762eb..d9d5a7bbb92f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
>> @@ -70,6 +70,68 @@ static void arm_pmu_acpi_unregister_irq(int cpu)
>>  }
>>  
>>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU)
>> +static int
>> +arm_acpi_register_pmu_device(struct platform_device *pdev, u8 len,
>> +			     u16 (*parse_gsi)(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *))
>> +{
>> +	int cpu, hetid, irq, ret;
>> +	bool matched = false;
>> +	u16 gsi = 0;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Ensure that platform device must have IORESOURCE_IRQ
>> +	 * resource to hold gsi interrupt.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (pdev->num_resources != 1)
>> +		return -ENXIO;
>> +
>> +	if (pdev->resource[0].flags != IORESOURCE_IRQ)
>> +		return -ENXIO;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt
>> +	 * number. For now, only support homogeneous ACPI machines.
>> +	 */
>> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> +		struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
>> +		u16 this_gsi;
>> +
>> +		gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
>> +		if (gicc->header.length < len)
>> +			return matched ? -ENXIO : 0;
>> +
>> +		this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);
>> +		if (!this_gsi)
>> +			return matched ? -ENXIO : 0;
> 
> I think you can push this check into the conditional below...
> 
>> +
>> +		if (!matched) {
>> +			hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
> 
> ... i.e. add a:
> 
> 			if (!this_gsi)
> 				return -ENXIO;
> 
> here.
> 
>> +			gsi = this_gsi;
>> +			matched = true;
> 
> And then, come to think of it, can we get rid of 'matched' altogether?
> Since a gsi of 0 is treated as invalid, we could just check that instead,
> no? So this becomes:
> 
> 
> 		gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
> 		if (gicc->header.length < len)
> 			return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;
> 
> 		this_hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
> 		this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);
> 		if (!gsi) {
> 			if (!this_gsi)
> 				return -ENXIO;

Unlike before, this returns -ENXIO on the very first instance itself without
a match. Previously this returned 0 in such cases. But I guess that is okay.

> 			gsi = this_gsi;
> 			hetid = this_hetid;
> 		} else if (hetid != this_hetid || gsi != this_gsi) {
> 			pr_warn("ACPI: %s: must be homogeneous\n", pdev->name);
> 			return -ENXIO;
> 		}
> 
> 
> What do you reckon?

This makes sense, and the modified function will look something like

arm_acpi_register_pmu_device(struct platform_device *pdev, u8 len,
                             u16 (*parse_gsi)(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *))
{
        int cpu, irq, ret;
        u16 gsi = 0;

        /*
         * Ensure that platform device must have IORESOURCE_IRQ
         * resource to hold gsi interrupt.
         */
        if (pdev->num_resources != 1)
                return -ENXIO;

        if (pdev->resource[0].flags != IORESOURCE_IRQ)
                return -ENXIO;

        /*
         * Sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt
         * number. For now, only support homogeneous ACPI machines.
         */
        for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
                struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
                int this_hetid, hetid;
                u16 this_gsi;

                gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
                if (gicc->header.length < len)
                        return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;

                this_hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
                this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);
                if (!gsi) {
                        if (!this_gsi)
                                return -ENXIO;

                        hetid = this_hetid;
                        gsi = this_gsi;
                } else if (hetid != this_hetid || gsi != this_gsi) {
                        pr_warn("ACPI: %s: must be homogeneous\n", pdev->name);
                        return -ENXIO;
                }
        }

        irq = acpi_register_gsi(NULL, gsi, ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE, ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH);
        if (irq < 0) {
                pr_warn("ACPI: %s Unable to register interrupt: %d\n", pdev->name, gsi);
                return -ENXIO;
        }

        pdev->resource[0].start = irq;
        ret = platform_device_register(pdev);
        if (ret < 0) {
                pr_warn("ACPI: %s: Unable to register device\n", pdev->name);
                acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
        }
        return ret;
}

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Add a representative platform device for TRBE

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 02/08/2023 02:07, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/1/23 20:21, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:50PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>>> index a0801f68762b..7ec26d21303d 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>>> @@ -187,5 +187,6 @@ void armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu);
>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_PMU */
>>>   
>>>   #define ARMV8_SPE_PDEV_NAME "arm,spe-v1"
>>> +#define ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME "arm-trbe-acpi"
>>
>> Why is the TRBE name formatted differently to the SPE one?
> 
> Nothing specific, although "arm,spe-v1" seemed more like a DT naming
> scheme. But could change the name as "arm,trbe-v1" to be in sync with
> SPE here.

Do we really need v1 ? I would leave it as arm,trbe

Suzuki


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH V2 2/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Add a representative platform device for TRBE

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 8/2/23 15:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 02/08/2023 02:07, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/1/23 20:21, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:10:50PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>>>> index a0801f68762b..7ec26d21303d 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
>>>> @@ -187,5 +187,6 @@ void armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu);
>>>>   #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_PMU */
>>>>     #define ARMV8_SPE_PDEV_NAME "arm,spe-v1"
>>>> +#define ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME "arm-trbe-acpi"
>>>
>>> Why is the TRBE name formatted differently to the SPE one?
>>
>> Nothing specific, although "arm,spe-v1" seemed more like a DT naming
>> scheme. But could change the name as "arm,trbe-v1" to be in sync with
>> SPE here.
> 
> Do we really need v1 ? I would leave it as arm,trbe

Sure, will make it 'arm,trbe' instead.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel