[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e7aaacd8-7972-6ab9-ff0c-e286bf23993a@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 12:13:16 +0000
From: Andrew Kilroy <andrew.kilroy@....com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf vendor events: For the Neoverse N2
On 07/12/2021 09:57, John Garry wrote:
> On 03/12/2021 12:35, Andrew Kilroy wrote:
>> Updates the common and microarch json file to add counters
>> available in the Neoverse N2 chip, but should also apply to other ArmV8
>> and ArmV9 cpus. Specified in ArmV8 architecture reference manual
>>
>> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0487/gb/?lang=en
>>
>> Some of the counters added to armv8-common-and-microarch.json are
>> specified in the ArmV9 architecture reference manual supplement
>> (issue A.a):
>>
>> https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0608/aa
>>
>> The additional ArmV9 counters are
>>
>> TRB_WRAP
>> TRCEXTOUT0
>> TRCEXTOUT1
>> TRCEXTOUT2
>> TRCEXTOUT3
>> CTI_TRIGOUT4
>> CTI_TRIGOUT5
>> CTI_TRIGOUT6
>> CTI_TRIGOUT7
>>
>> This patch also adds files in pmu-events/arch/arm64/arm/neoverse-n2 for
>> perf list to output the counter names in categories.
>>
>> A subsequent patch renames armv8-common-and-microarch.json and
>> armv8-recommended.json to reflect that counters for armv9 are being
>> added.
>
> This commentary should be in a cover letter. Please do that.
>
> And did you consider just adding a armv9-common-and-microarch.json and
> armv9-recommended.json instead of adding to and renaming the v8 version?
> I know that it creates scattered definitions, but we already have that in
> dividing the common and the recommended JSONs.
>
I considered it, but I wasn't sure what was preferable. I thought I'd
get some feedback. Do you consider the separation important? Any
particular reason?
> Thanks,
> John
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists