From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> To: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@arm.com> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, alex.bennee@linaro.org, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, robh@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 09/10] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:03:07 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170113170307.GK3253@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170113104042.169ceea12820d2b6b74b31f9@arm.com> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:40:42AM -0600, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:03:48 +0000 > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > +#define DRVNAME "arm_spe_pmu" > > PMU is implied. "arm_spe"? As stated before, I'm going for consistency here. Is it causing any real issues on the tooling side? > > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > > + if (attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + } else if (!attr->exclude_hv) { > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + } > > + > > + reg = arm_spe_event_to_pmsfcr(event); > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FE_SHIFT)) && > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT)) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FT_SHIFT)) && > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_TYP)) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FL_SHIFT)) && > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_LAT)) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > Please insert pr_* statements before blindly returning errors before a > better facility becomes available. That was discussed in the thread I linked to last time: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/661 and there are good reasons not to add those prints. Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 09/10] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:03:07 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170113170307.GK3253@arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170113104042.169ceea12820d2b6b74b31f9@arm.com> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:40:42AM -0600, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:03:48 +0000 > Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > > +#define DRVNAME "arm_spe_pmu" > > PMU is implied. "arm_spe"? As stated before, I'm going for consistency here. Is it causing any real issues on the tooling side? > > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { > > + if (attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + } else if (!attr->exclude_hv) { > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + } > > + > > + reg = arm_spe_event_to_pmsfcr(event); > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FE_SHIFT)) && > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT)) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FT_SHIFT)) && > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_TYP)) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FL_SHIFT)) && > > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_LAT)) > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > Please insert pr_* statements before blindly returning errors before a > better facility becomes available. That was discussed in the thread I linked to last time: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/661 and there are good reasons not to add those prints. Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-13 17:03 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-01-13 16:03 [RFC PATCH v2 00/10] Add support for the ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] arm64: cpufeature: allow for version discrepancy in PMU implementations Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/10] arm64: cpufeature: Don't enforce system-wide SPE capability Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/10] arm64: KVM: Save/restore the host SPE state when entering/leaving a VM Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-16 11:25 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-16 11:25 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-18 15:24 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-18 15:24 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/10] arm64: head.S: Enable EL1 (host) access to SPE when entered at EL2 Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 19:21 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-13 19:21 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/10] genirq: export irq_get_percpu_devid_partition to modules Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 19:04 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-13 19:04 ` Marc Zyngier 2017-01-16 9:06 ` Thomas Gleixner 2017-01-16 9:06 ` Thomas Gleixner 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/10] perf/core: Export AUX buffer helpers " Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/10] perf: Directly pass PERF_AUX_* flags to perf_aux_output_end Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/10] perf/core: Add PERF_AUX_FLAG_COLLISION to report colliding samples Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/10] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:40 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-13 16:40 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-13 17:03 ` Will Deacon [this message] 2017-01-13 17:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 18:17 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-13 18:17 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-13 16:03 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/10] dt-bindings: Document devicetree binding for ARM SPE Will Deacon 2017-01-13 16:03 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-13 18:43 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-13 18:43 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-16 10:59 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-16 10:59 ` Will Deacon 2017-01-17 16:31 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-17 16:31 ` Kim Phillips 2017-01-17 16:50 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-17 16:50 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-17 16:45 ` Mark Rutland 2017-01-17 16:45 ` Mark Rutland
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20170113170307.GK3253@arm.com \ --to=will.deacon@arm.com \ --cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \ --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \ --cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \ --cc=kim.phillips@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=robh@kernel.org \ --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.