[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNTCa5QO1YMy8fJ0@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 19:35:39 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] perf: Create a symlink for a PMU
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 01:07:14PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
>
> On 6/24/2021 11:31 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 08:24:29AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/24/2021 7:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 07:24:31AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > But first off, why is this symlink suddenly needed? What is so special
> > > > > > about this new hardware that it breaks the existing model?
> > > > > The driver can be in two modes:
> > > > >
> > > > > - Driver fully knows the hardware and puts in the correct Linux names
> > > > >
> > > > > - Driver doesn't know the hardware but is in a fallback mode where it only
> > > > > looks at a discovery table. There we don't have the correct names, just an
> > > > > numeric identifier for the different hardware sub components.
> > > > Why does this matter? Why would the driver not "know" the hardware? If
> > > > it doesn't know it, why would it bind to it?
> > >
> > > It's a similar concept as a PCI class. How to have a driver that can handle
> > > future hardware, but with some restrictions
> >
> > But this is NOT how busses work in the driver model.
> >
> > PCI classes are great, but we do NOT suddenly add a symlink in sysfs if
> > a driver goes from being handled by "generic_pci_type_foo" to
> > "vendor_foo". Userspace can handle the change and life goes on.
> >
> > > The perf CPU PMU has had a similar concept for a long time. The driver can
> > > be either in architectural mode (with a subset of features), or be fully
> > > enabled. This allows users who are on an older kernel to still use at least
> > > a subset of the functionality.
> >
> > So a device name will move from "generic" to "specific", right?
>
> We'd like to keep both names.
That is not how sysfs and the driver model works, sorry. You don't get
to keep both names, otherwise sysfs would be even more of a mess than it
currently is. What happens if you need "another" name in the future?
When do you stop?
this isn't ok, please do it right.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists