From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jeremy.linton@arm.com (Jeremy Linton)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:21:12 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 7/8] arm64: pmu: Enable multiple PMUs in an ACPI system
In-Reply-To: <20160615132246.GL24029@arm.com>
References: <1465511013-10742-1-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <1465511013-10742-8-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20160615132246.GL24029@arm.com>
Message-ID: <57617268.60705@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 06/15/2016 08:22 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 05:23:32PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> Its possible that an ACPI system has multiple CPU types in it
>> with differing PMU counters. Use the newly provided acpi_pmu routines
>> to detect that case, and instantiate more than one set of counters.
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> +	pmus = kcalloc(num_possible_cpus(), sizeof(struct pmu_types),
>> +		       GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> +	if (pmus) {
>> +		arm_pmu_acpi_determine_cpu_types(pmus);
>> +
>> +		for (j = 0; pmus[j].cpu_count; j++) {
>> +			pr_devel("CPU type %X, count %d\n", pmus[j].cpu_type,
>> +				 pmus[j].cpu_count);
>> +			res = kcalloc(pmus[j].cpu_count,
>> +				      sizeof(struct resource), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Given that you already have dynamic allocation in here, why not use a
> linked-list for the pmus list, and avoid having a potentially huge temporary
> data structure?

Sure... But, its really only going to be 2 entries on any existing 
system, I considered limiting this to something reasonable like "4" with 
a WARN() because who will ever build a machine with more than 4 
different CPU types in it? <chuckle> Is that an acceptable solution, or 
do you prefer the list?

Although, maybe the list is better, because then when someone does build 
such a machine it will "just work (TM)". <shrug>