From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K. Poulose) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:11:15 +0000 Subject: [PATCHv3 0/5] arm-cci400: PMU monitoring support on ARM64 In-Reply-To: References: <1426000735-14375-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Message-ID: <54FF17A3.5040404@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/03/15 16:09, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2015, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote: > >> From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" >> >> This series enables the PMU monitoring support for CCI400 on ARM64. >> The existing CCI400 driver code is a mix of PMU driver and the MCPM >> driver code. The MCPM driver is only used on ARM(32) and contains >> arm32 assembly and hence can't be built on ARM64. This patch splits >> the code to >> >> - ARM_CCI400_PORT_CTRL driver - depends on ARM && V7 >> - ARM_CCI400_PMU driver >> >> Accessing the Peripheral ID2 register(PID2) on CCI-400, to detect >> the revision of the chipset, is a secure operation. Hence, it prevents >> us from running this on non-secure platforms. The issue is overcome by >> explicitly mentioning the revision number of the CCI PMU in the device tree >> binding. The device-tree binding has been updated with the new bindings. >> >> i.e, arm-cci-400-pmu,r0 => revision 0 >> arm-cci-400-pmu,r1 => revision 1 >> arm-cci-400-pmu => (old) DEPRECATED >> >> The old binding has been DEPRECATED and must be used only on ARM32 >> system with secure access. We don't have a reliable dynamic way to detect >> if the system is running secure. This series tries to use the best safe >> method by relying on the availability of MCPM(as it was prior to the series). >> It is upto the MCPM platform driver to decide, if the system is secure before >> it goes ahead and registers its drivers and pokes the CCI. This series doesn't >> address/solve the problem of MCPM. I will be happy to use a better approach, >> if there is any. >> >> Tested on (non-secure)TC2 and A53x2. > > Would be nice if you could also test it on secure TC2 making sure MCPM > is still functional. Sudeep is testing those bits. > > For patches 1, 3 and 4, you may add: > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre > > Patches 2 and 5 are purely PMU stuff and out of my area of expertise. > Thanks Suzuki