From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan@samsung.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] arm-cci400: PMU monitoring support on ARM64
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:17:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1424783863-9894-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> (raw)
From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
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_MCPM 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 Juno.
Suzuki K. Poulose (4):
arm-cci: Rearrange code for splitting PMU vs driver code
arm-cci: Get rid of secure transactions for PMU driver
arm-cci: Split the code for PMU vs driver support
arm-cci: Fix CCI PMU event validation
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt | 7 +-
arch/arm/include/asm/arm-cci.h | 42 +++
arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 2 +-
arch/arm/mach-vexpress/Kconfig | 4 +-
arch/arm64/include/asm/arm-cci.h | 27 ++
drivers/bus/Kconfig | 28 +-
drivers/bus/arm-cci.c | 483 ++++++++++++++-----------
include/linux/arm-cci.h | 9 +-
8 files changed, 383 insertions(+), 219 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/arm-cci.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/arm-cci.h
--
1.7.9.5
next reply other threads:[~2015-02-24 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-24 13:17 Suzuki K. Poulose [this message]
2015-02-24 13:17 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm-cci: Rearrange code for splitting PMU vs driver code Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-02-24 13:17 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm-cci: Get rid of secure transactions for PMU driver Suzuki K. Poulose
[not found] ` <1424783863-9894-3-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2015-02-24 21:53 ` Nicolas Pitre
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.11.1502241646190.25484-fMhRO7WWcppj+hNMo8g0rg@public.gmane.org>
2015-02-25 10:20 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-02-24 13:17 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm-cci: Split the code for PMU vs driver support Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-02-24 22:17 ` Nicolas Pitre
[not found] ` <alpine.LFD.2.11.1502241659270.25484-fMhRO7WWcppj+hNMo8g0rg@public.gmane.org>
2015-02-25 10:26 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-02-25 14:31 ` Nicolas Pitre
2015-02-24 13:17 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm-cci: Fix CCI PMU event validation Suzuki K. Poulose
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1424783863-9894-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=a.kesavan@samsung.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kgene@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liviu.dudau@arm.com \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=nico@linaro.org \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
--cc=punit.agrawal@arm.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).