From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:00:48 -0600 Subject: [RFC PATCH] ARM: pmu: add OF match support In-Reply-To: References: <1297223617-19173-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <3399156206431206254@unknownmsgid> <-4919269306841091192@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <4D531CA0.8050402@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/09/2011 01:03 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >> Grant, >> >>>> Following on from Rob's update, it would be nice if you could specify that >>>> the PMU is a CPU PMU (as opposed to L2-cache, bus, gpu etc) in the string. >>>> That way adding different PMUs in the future seems more natural and it accounts >>>> for your concerns above. Is that ok, or does the compatible string have to >>>> match that used by the platform bus? >>> >>> It does make sense to encode the specific implementation into the >>> compatible string. A single device driver can bind against multiple >>> compatible strings. ie. the match table could include {.compatible = >>> "arm,cortex-a9-pmu"},{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-l2cache-pmu"}... >> >> Ok - that's great! Specifying the CPU is probably a little verbose, but >> something like "arm,armv7pmu" would be really helpful when it comes to >> multiple devices. >> >>>> As for versioning, the PMU detection is done dynamically at runtime, >>>> so knowing that we're poking a CPU is enough. >>> >>> Fair enough. It is still good practice in the compatible list to >>> encode the specific PMU implementation (maybe arm,cortex-a9-pmu?) >>> instead of trying to define a 'generic' or wildcard compatible value. >>> Newer implementations can always claim compatibility with an older >>> implementation so that the kernel doesn't have to be modified to find >>> the new devices. "arm,pmu" is probably too generic. >> >> "arm,pmu" is definitely too generic. If it's good practice to specify >> as much as possible, then go for it - I just feel a little uneasy having >> to add lots of redundant kernel code but it sounds like you'll hopefully >> prove me wrong on that :) > > Shouldn't be any redundant kernel code. It's just a list of match > values, and the driver code already knows how to handle it. The > advantage of being specific is that if the driver ever does need > information about the specific implementation (say, because the > hardware reported value is buggy), then the data is available. By that argument, we should use ",cortex-a9-rXpX-pmu." As a particular rev of the A9 PMU or vendor's SOC could be buggy. That would quickly grow into a long list. Just with cpu models, we would have: cortex-a9 cortex-a8 cortex-a15 cortex-a5 arm1136 arm1176 l210 l220 pl310 various xscale flavors Qualcomm SMP Keep in mind that the whole point of this platform device is just to specify the interrupt connection which is the only part that varies by SOC (and is not probe-able). Rob