[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ya90lK/PqJDIrXlB@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2021 11:49:56 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Kilroy <andrew.kilroy@....com>
Cc: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 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
Em Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 12:13:16PM +0000, Andrew Kilroy escreveu:
>
>
> 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?
Applied the second patch, waiting for a conclusion to this discussion to
pick the other two patches.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists