From: Jeremy Linton <email@example.com> To: John Garry <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Add basic generic ACPI soc driver Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 13:04:15 -0600 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Hi, On 1/28/20 11:28 AM, John Garry wrote: > On 28/01/2020 16:56, Jeremy Linton wrote: >> Hi, >> > > Hi Jeremy, > >> On 1/28/20 5:14 AM, John Garry wrote: >>> A requirement has come up recently to be able to read system SoC >>> packages >>> identifiers from userspace . >>> >>> For device tree FW-based systems, this would be quite >>> straightforward, in >>> that we could add a soc driver for that system and use the DT model >>> identifier as the soc id - that's how most soc drivers seem to do it. >>> >>> For ACPI-based systems, the only place I know to get (put) such SoC >>> information is in the PPTT, specifically the ID Type Structure for a >>> processor package node. A processor package node describes a physical >>> boundary of a processor topology. >> >> Well presumably that is one of the use cases for DMI, which has fields >> for the processor/socket as well as the machine vendor. > > I did consider DMI, but I want something more generic, i.e. could cover > embedded/DT systems also. > > And I need to double check if DMI really has the info I require. Last > time I checked, it didn't for my dev board, but I know that some fields > are simply not filled in. Well the info is probably there, but that doesn't mean it should be used programmatically. As your board shows, its not that reliable. And looking at the linked patch I see you mention that. > >> >> But, quickly looking at the use case, I can't help but think you don't >> really want any of the above, or the PPTT id. It seems the mapping >> should actually be tied directly to the uncore PMU definition, rather >> than a soc/machine/whatever identifier. Which would imply keying off >> one of the ACPI object identifiers for the PMU itself. > > So a PMU device (/sys/bus/event_source/devices) does not have a link to > the ACPI object identifiers or uncore PMU platform device etc. > > And even if it did, there is no clear link between that ACPI object and > the events it supports for that implementation. Having a direct link isn't ideal either. It seems you do mention the pmu naming conventions, which can be controlled based on ACPI object identifiers. Something like "uncore_dmc_hsi1" where the appended bits could for example vary on _CID+_UID or DT name. Not sure that is a particularly good suggestion either, but I do think its a better idea to tie the mapping to the pmu type/man/version concept than the SOC it appears in. The sysfs-bus-event_source-devices-* ABI docs are noticeably silent on the format of the pmu name (is that somewhere else?).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-28 19:04 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-01-28 11:14 John Garry 2020-01-28 11:14 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add acpi_pptt_get_package_info() API John Garry 2020-01-28 12:34 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-01-28 14:04 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 14:54 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-01-29 11:03 ` John Garry 2020-01-30 11:23 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-01-30 16:12 ` John Garry 2020-01-30 17:41 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-01-31 10:58 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 11:14 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] soc: Add a basic ACPI generic driver John Garry 2020-01-28 11:56 ` Greg KH 2020-01-28 13:33 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 12:50 ` Arnd Bergmann 2020-01-28 14:46 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 15:20 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-01-28 15:59 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 16:17 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-01-28 17:51 ` Olof Johansson 2020-01-28 18:22 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 19:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-01-28 19:28 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 22:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-01-29 10:27 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 20:06 ` Olof Johansson 2020-01-29 9:58 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 16:56 ` [PATCH RFC 0/2] Add basic generic ACPI soc driver Jeremy Linton 2020-01-28 17:28 ` John Garry 2020-01-28 19:04 ` Jeremy Linton [this message] 2020-01-28 20:07 ` John Garry
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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] Add basic generic ACPI soc driver' \ /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: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).