Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] perf/x86/uncore: modularize Intel uncore driver

["Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@intel.com>]

On 04/25/2014 09:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 09:17:36PM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>> On 04/24/2014 07:27 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:36:01PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>>>>> Most of hardware specific codes in the Intel uncore driver are for
>>>>> SandyBridge/IvyBridge/Haswell. Uncore subsystem in these CPUs are
>>>>> similar. One module per CPU type means we have to duplicate lots of
>>>>> code. I don't think it's a good idea.
>>>>>
>>>> Then, at least split nhm_ex from the rest. It is very big.
>>>
>>> Aren't the EX parts in general far more complex and different from the
>>> EP parts? Or will the SNB/IVB/HSW-EX parts also be similar again? (this
>>> would be a good thing).
>>
>> SNB/IVB/HSW-EX are almost identical to SNB/IVB/HSW-EP.
> 
> Ah, good, sanity prevails!
> 
>> NHM/WSM-EX are complete different from SNB/IVB/HSW-EX
> 
> Yeah, NHM/WSM-EX are different from pretty much anything.
> 
> Where do NHM/WSM-EP fall? I know they're radically different to the EX
> parts but are they similar again to the SNB/IVB/HSW EP parts?
> 

the uncore driver does not support NHM/WSM-EP (I don't know the module numbers for NHM/WSM-EP, maybe I'm wrong)

> If not we'd have 3 groups:
> 
> NHM/WSM-EP
> NHM/WSM-EX
> SNB/IVB/HSW
> 

I think we'd have:

NHM/WSM-EX
SNB/IVB/HSW-EP
Desktop version of NHM/SNB/IVB/HSW

Regards
Yan, Zheng