[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c50d36ca-2268-4149-8bf0-c44fc1786d9c@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 12:08:41 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Yoshihiro Furudera <fj5100bi@...itsu.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
NĂcolas F. R. A. Prado <nfraprado@...labora.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Fujitsu: Add the Uncore MAC PMU driver
On 08/11/2024 12:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/11/2024 06:40, Yoshihiro Furudera wrote:
>> This adds a new dynamic PMU to the Perf Events framework to program and
>> control the Uncore MAC PMUs in Fujitsu chips.
>>
>> This driver was created with reference to drivers/perf/qcom_l3_pmu.c.
This confused me...
>> CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU=m
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/Kconfig b/drivers/perf/Kconfig
>> index bab8ba64162f..4705c605e286 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/Kconfig
>> @@ -178,6 +178,15 @@ config FSL_IMX9_DDR_PMU
>> can give information about memory throughput and other related
>> events.
>>
>> +config FUJITSU_MAC_PMU
>> + bool "Fujitsu Uncore MAC PMU"
>> + depends on (ARM64 && ACPI) || (COMPILE_TEST && 64BIT)
>
> Missing depends on specific ARCH.
>
> Sorry, this looks like work for some out of tree arch support. I don't
> think we have any interest in taking it... unless it is part of bigger
> patchset/work? If so, then provide *lore* link to relevant patchset.
>
-ENOTENOUGHCOFFEE, I see now ACPI dependency so there will be no SoC
folks for this, right? Then anyway split work per subsystem and send
defconfig to Soc maintainers.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists