From: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: bcm2835: Add the PMU to the devicetree. Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 18:55:26 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview] Message-ID: <307323036.63872.1526576126537@email.1und1.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1805171233500.7984@macbook-air> Hi, [added Peter, Ingo and Arnaldo] > Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu> hat am 17. Mai 2018 um 18:34 geschrieben: > > > On Thu, 17 May 2018, Stefan Wahren wrote: > > > > > > Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> hat am 17. Mai 2018 um 15:17 geschrieben: > > > > > > > > > The a53 and a7 counters seem to match up, so we advertise a7 so that > > > arm32 can probe. > > so how closely did you look at the a53/a7 differences? I see some major > differences, especially with the CPU_CYCLES event (0xff vs 0x11). > > The proper fix here might be to add a cortex-a53 PMU entry to the armv7 > code rather than trying to treat it as a cortex-a7. we like to use the PMU of BCM2837 SoC (4x A53 cores) under arm32 and arm64. What is the right way (tm) to the define the DT compatibles? Does the arm32 PMU driver need patching for proper A53 support? Stefan > > Vince
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: stefan.wahren@i2se.com (Stefan Wahren) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] arm: bcm2835: Add the PMU to the devicetree. Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 18:55:26 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview] Message-ID: <307323036.63872.1526576126537@email.1und1.de> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1805171233500.7984@macbook-air> Hi, [added Peter, Ingo and Arnaldo] > Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu> hat am 17. Mai 2018 um 18:34 geschrieben: > > > On Thu, 17 May 2018, Stefan Wahren wrote: > > > > > > Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> hat am 17. Mai 2018 um 15:17 geschrieben: > > > > > > > > > The a53 and a7 counters seem to match up, so we advertise a7 so that > > > arm32 can probe. > > so how closely did you look at the a53/a7 differences? I see some major > differences, especially with the CPU_CYCLES event (0xff vs 0x11). > > The proper fix here might be to add a cortex-a53 PMU entry to the armv7 > code rather than trying to treat it as a cortex-a7. we like to use the PMU of BCM2837 SoC (4x A53 cores) under arm32 and arm64. What is the right way (tm) to the define the DT compatibles? Does the arm32 PMU driver need patching for proper A53 support? Stefan > > Vince
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-17 16:56 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-05-17 13:17 [PATCH] arm: bcm2835: Add the PMU to the devicetree Eric Anholt 2018-05-17 13:17 ` Eric Anholt 2018-05-17 14:11 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 14:11 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 14:30 ` Eric Anholt 2018-05-17 14:30 ` Eric Anholt 2018-05-17 16:02 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 16:02 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 16:06 ` Stefan Wahren 2018-05-17 16:06 ` Stefan Wahren 2018-05-17 15:59 ` Stefan Wahren 2018-05-17 15:59 ` Stefan Wahren 2018-05-17 16:34 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 16:34 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 16:55 ` Stefan Wahren [this message] 2018-05-17 16:55 ` Stefan Wahren 2018-05-17 18:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-05-17 18:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-05-17 18:27 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 18:27 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 19:31 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 19:31 ` Vince Weaver 2018-05-17 19:59 ` Florian Fainelli 2018-05-17 19:59 ` Florian Fainelli 2018-05-18 8:07 ` Marc Zyngier 2018-05-18 8:07 ` Marc Zyngier 2018-05-18 9:37 ` Stefan Wahren 2018-05-18 9:37 ` Stefan Wahren 2018-05-18 9:49 ` Marc Zyngier 2018-05-18 9:49 ` Marc Zyngier 2018-05-17 17:09 ` Eric Anholt 2018-05-17 17:09 ` Eric Anholt 2018-05-17 16:44 ` Peter Robinson 2018-05-17 16:44 ` Peter Robinson
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=307323036.63872.1526576126537@email.1und1.de \ --to=stefan.wahren@i2se.com \ --cc=acme@kernel.org \ --cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \ --cc=eric@anholt.net \ --cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=vincent.weaver@maine.edu \ /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.