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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 09:35:13 +0800
From:   Shaokun Zhang <>
To:     John Garry <>, Will Deacon <>,
        "Rob Herring" <>
CC:     Mark Rutland <>, <>,
        "Joakim Zhang" <>,
        "" <>,
        NXP Linux Team <>,
        Shawn Guo <>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 RESEND 1/3] perf/imx_ddr: Add system PMU identifier for


On 2020/5/27 22:34, John Garry wrote:
>>>>> I also really dislike this. What's the preferred way to identify the SoC
>>>>> from userspace?
>>>> /proc/cpuinfo? ;)
>>> The *SoC*!
>>>> For an non-firmware specific case, I'd say soc_device should be. I'd
>>>> guess ACPI systems don't use it and for them it's dmidecode typically.
>>>> The other problem I have with soc_device is it is optional.
>> Hi Will,
>>> John -- what do you think about using soc_device to expose this information,
>>> with ACPI systems using DMI data instead?
>> Generally I don't think that DMI is reliable, and I saw this as the least preferred choice. I'm looking at the sysfs DMI info for my dev board, and I don't even see anything like a SoC identifier.
>> As for the event_source device sysfs identifier file, it would not always contain effectively the same as the SoC ID.
>> Certain PMUs which I'm interested in plan to have probe-able identification info available in future.
> BTW, Shaokun now tells me that the HiSi uncore PMU HW have such registers to identify the implementation. I didn't know.

Right, we have this register which shows the PMU version.


> So we could add that identifier file for those PMUs as proof-of-concept, exposing that register.
> As for other PMUs which I'm interested in, again, future versions should have such registers to self-identify.
> So using something derived from the DT compat string would hopefully be the uncommon case.
> Cheers,
> John
> .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists