linux-acpi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, olof@lixom.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.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: <6be8d175-477d-d163-3fe0-3ab562874ce4@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5ab3a97d-bbc4-6d5a-fd06-f8da324339ab@huawei.com>

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 [0].
>>>
>>> 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?).




  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 \
    --in-reply-to=6be8d175-477d-d163-3fe0-3ab562874ce4@arm.com \
    --to=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --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).