From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ryan@bluewatersys.com (Ryan Mallon) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:51:12 +1300 Subject: [PATCHv5 0/3] Introduce the /proc/socinfo and use it to export OMAP data In-Reply-To: <4D6D9FC7.1090206@codeaurora.org> References: <1273587331-24604-1-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@nokia.com> <20110216115729.GA29817@besouro.research.nokia.com> <4D6B78BF.1020102@stericsson.com> <4D6C7B56.9060109@codeaurora.org> <4D6D9B10.9000606@codeaurora.org> <4D6D9D06.2020204@bluewatersys.com> <4D6D9FC7.1090206@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <4D6DA290.2010607@bluewatersys.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/02/2011 02:39 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 03/01/2011 05:27 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote: >> On 03/02/2011 02:19 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> On 03/01/2011 05:13 PM, Andrei Warkentin wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Saravana Kannan >>>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> What would an "arch" file mean? The name of the soc platform? >>> >>> The arch file would pretty much be the "xxxx" from arch/arm/mach-xxxx or >>> similar paths. If that info is already available elsewhere, then that >>> file is not needed. I proposed using the arch since that will remove the >>> need to maintain some database of unique/reserved names/numbers for each >>> implementation of socinfo (like the machinetypes list we have). >> >> /proc/cpuinfo already tells you what the CPU is, which gives more >> information than just the architecture name. >> >> Why is the arch information even required by userspace? > > The socinfo exported by each soc is different. If userspace is trying to > make decisions based on socinfo, it will need to know what type of soc > (really what type of socinfo implementation) it is before trying to > interpret the rest of the socinfo files. Keep in mind that cpuinfo is > different from socinfo -- the cpu is just a small part of a soc. I understand that having a socinfo file for obtaining information about a particular SoC would be useful. A similar discussion came up a few years ago when we talked about having a socinfo file for exposing the ep93xx Maverick crunch id, but nothing ever came out of it. What I don't understand is why you want the 'arch' file (ie the mach-xxxx) name. /proc/cpuinfo already gives you more information than an 'arch' file would. I also can't think of a particularly good situation why userspace would need to know at runtime what the architecture is. Have a socinfo file to expose implementation details of the particular SoC I am fine with (assuming those details are useful to userspace), having an 'arch' file to expose the architecture I am against. ~Ryan -- Bluewater Systems Ltd - ARM Technology Solution Centre Ryan Mallon 5 Amuri Park, 404 Barbadoes St ryan at bluewatersys.com PO Box 13 889, Christchurch 8013 http://www.bluewatersys.com New Zealand Phone: +64 3 3779127 Freecall: Australia 1800 148 751 Fax: +64 3 3779135 USA 1800 261 2934