Re: [PATCH V8 23/23] perf tools: adding coresight etm PMU record capabilities

[Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>]

[...]

>>> >
>>> > Looks OK, apart from adding linux/coresight-pmu.h to the manifest, but I
>>> > mentioned that on another patch.
>>> >
>>> > However there is no decoder, which begs the question, is there anything you
>>> > can actually do with the perf.data file?  Might be a bit confusing for users
>>> > if they can capture traces but not use perf tools on the resulting perf.data
>>> > file?
>>>
>>> We are working on a decoding library in parallel to this work.
>>
>> Would be nice to be able to get both in the same patch kit, no? So that
>> one can both record and process the traces, verifying it all works.
>
> We are still a few weeks away from being in a position where the
> community can start playing with the decoding library.  I can hold off
> on the "perf tools" patches when I queue the kernel side of the work
> for 4.6 but since you and Adrian have already reviewed the work it
> would be nice to have that part included as well.
>
> We've been playing with the perf.data files for a couple of months now
> and things look at the right place.  This isn't surprising since we
> are using the same framework as X86.
>
> I think the generation of the perf.data file should be coupled with
> the submission of the kernel driver but would also respect a diverging
> point of view.  Simply let me know what you prefer and I will adjust
> V9 accordingly.

Arnaldo,

I'm preparing V9 at this time - what's your view on the above?

Thanks,
Mathieu