lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:59:04 +0000 From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, marc.zyngier@....com, kim.phillips@....com, alex.bennee@...aro.org, christoffer.dall@...aro.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, robh@...nel.org, suzuki.poulose@....com, pawel.moll@....com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 10/10] dt-bindings: Document devicetree binding for ARM SPE On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 06:43:52PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:03:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > This patch documents the devicetree binding in use for ARM SPE. > > > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..d6540b491af4 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > > +* ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension (SPE) Performance Monitor Units (PMU) > > + > > +ARMv8.2 introduces the optional Statistical Profiling Extension for collecting > > +performance sample data using an in-memory trace buffer. > > + > > +** SPE Required properties: > > + > > +- compatible : should be one of: > > + "arm,arm-spe-pmu-v1" > > The second "arm" here doesn't seem to add much. Should that be "armv8.2" > instead? I don't think armv8.2 is particularly helpful, because that effectively ties together the SPE version and the architecture version, which I don't think is strictly required. The reason I added it was so that you could describe a partner implementation as something like: acme,arm-spe-pmu-v1 and know that it was acme's implementation of an ARM architectural feature. If I drop the second "arm", I was worried that it might conflict with other namespaces (e.g. acme's signal-processing-element's power-management-unit). What do you reckon? Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists