[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <72246c5e-6ba5-098b-a979-e90738cc7509@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 08:55:07 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Jing Zhang <renyu.zj@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Zhuo Song <zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] driver/perf: Add identifier sysfs file for CMN
On 27/03/2023 03:46, Jing Zhang wrote:
> To allow userspace to identify the specific implementation of the device,
> add an "identifier" sysfs file.
>
> The perf tool can match the arm CMN metric through the identifier.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jing Zhang <renyu.zj@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c b/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
> index c968986..0c138ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm-cmn.c
> @@ -1168,10 +1168,53 @@ static ssize_t arm_cmn_cpumask_show(struct device *dev,
> .attrs = arm_cmn_cpumask_attrs,
> };
>
> +static ssize_t arm_cmn_identifier_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + struct arm_cmn *cmn = to_cmn(dev_get_drvdata(dev));
> + if (cmn->model == CMN700) {
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", "CMN700");
Is it possible to have a pointer to this string in struct arm_cmn, such
that we don't have to do this model to identifier lookup here? If-else
chains like this are not scalable.
BTW, does this HW have some HW identifier register, like iidr? I think
that using that may be preferable.
> + }
> + else if (cmn->model == CMN650) {
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", "CMN650");
I'd use lowercase names
> + }
> + else if (cmn->model == CMN600) {
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", "CMN600");
> + }
> + else if (cmn->model == CI700) {
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", "CI700");
> + }
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%s\n", "UNKNOWN");
can we have a "is_visble" attr to just no show this when unknown?
> +}
> +
> +static umode_t arm_cmn_identifier_attr_visible(struct kobject *kobj,
> + struct attribute *attr, int n)
> +{
> + struct device *dev = kobj_to_dev(kobj);
> + struct arm_cmn *cmn = to_cmn(dev_get_drvdata(dev));
> + if (cmn->model <= 0)
> + return 0;
> + return attr->mode;
> +};
> +
> +static struct device_attribute arm_cmn_identifier_attr =
> +__ATTR(identifier, 0444, arm_cmn_identifier_show, NULL);
> +
> +static struct attribute *arm_cmn_identifier_attrs[] = {
> + &arm_cmn_identifier_attr.attr,
> + NULL,
nit: no need for trailing ',' on a sentinel
> +};
> +
> +static struct attribute_group arm_cmn_identifier_attr_group = {
> + .attrs = arm_cmn_identifier_attrs,
> + .is_visible = arm_cmn_identifier_attr_visible,
> +};
> +
> static const struct attribute_group *arm_cmn_attr_groups[] = {
> &arm_cmn_event_attrs_group,
> &arm_cmn_format_attrs_group,
> &arm_cmn_cpumask_attr_group,
> + &arm_cmn_identifier_attr_group,
> NULL
> };
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists