[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFBXQGeYCO2nJYNG@J2N7QTR9R3>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:41:20 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ali Saidi <alisaidi@...zon.com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jinqian Yang <yangjinqian1@...wei.com>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: perf usage of arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:29:48AM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> I was also wondering if we could just diverge on the tools side, but in
> reality it also has to stay compatible with the definitions of all the MIDRs
> so might as well keep the whole thing identical.
I think that'd be the best option overall.
The only thing we really care about updating periodically is the set of
MIDRs, and we can factor that out to a cputype-defs.h header, and
possibly generate that too (as with sysreg-defs.h).
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists