From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34731) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTCOz-0005Nj-Iq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:48:38 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTCOv-0001qu-Et for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:48:37 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:33930) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aTCOv-0001qo-23 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:48:33 -0500 References: <9a4369604c653bd21eca8509aa8b160d8cda951f.1454720020.git.alistair.francis@xilinx.com> From: Christopher Covington Message-ID: <56BA266D.1080808@codeaurora.org> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:48:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/5] target-arm: Add the pmceid0 and pmceid1 registers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Alistair Francis Cc: Aaron Lindsay , Peter Crosthwaite , QEMU Developers , Nathan Rossi On 02/09/2016 12:19 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 February 2016 at 00:55, Alistair Francis > wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lindsay >> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis >> Tested-by: Nathan Rossi >> --- >> >> target-arm/cpu-qom.h | 2 ++ >> target-arm/cpu.c | 2 ++ >> target-arm/cpu64.c | 2 ++ >> target-arm/helper.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 14 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu-qom.h b/target-arm/cpu-qom.h >> index 07c0a71..1cc4502 100644 >> --- a/target-arm/cpu-qom.h >> +++ b/target-arm/cpu-qom.h >> @@ -148,6 +148,8 @@ typedef struct ARMCPU { >> uint32_t id_pfr0; >> uint32_t id_pfr1; >> uint32_t id_dfr0; >> + uint32_t pmceid0; >> + uint32_t pmceid1; >> uint32_t id_afr0; >> uint32_t id_mmfr0; >> uint32_t id_mmfr1; >> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.c b/target-arm/cpu.c >> index 7ddbf3d..937f845 100644 >> --- a/target-arm/cpu.c >> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.c >> @@ -1156,6 +1156,8 @@ static void cortex_a15_initfn(Object *obj) >> cpu->id_pfr0 = 0x00001131; >> cpu->id_pfr1 = 0x00011011; >> cpu->id_dfr0 = 0x02010555; >> + cpu->pmceid0 = 0x00000481; /* PMUv3 events 0x0, 0x8, and 0x11 */ > > These are: > SW_INCR # insn architecturally executed, cc pass, software increment > INST_RETIRED # insn architecturally executed > CPU_CYCLES # cycle > > However we don't actually implement any of these, so should > we be advertising them? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I was under the impression that CPU cycle accounting was implemented as pmccntr_read/write in target-arm/helper.c. The instruction count event may need a wrapper around cpu_get_icount(). SWINC is pretty trivial, but I don't think we actually use it, other than for some testing (but unfortunately not yet part of the kvm-unit-tests patchset). Thanks, Cov -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project