From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1426164AbcBRLYY (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 06:24:24 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:38416 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1425274AbcBRLYX (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 06:24:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:24:29 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Jan Glauber Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] arm64/perf: Rename Cortex A57 events Message-ID: <20160218112429.GC8011@arm.com> References: <20160215194037.GU6298@arm.com> <20160215200613.GY6298@arm.com> <20160218091307.GA4566@hardcore> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160218091307.GA4566@hardcore> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:13:07AM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:06:13PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:40:37PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:11:56PM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote: > > > > The implemented Cortex A57 events are not A57 specific. > > > > They are recommended by ARM and can be found on other > > > > ARMv8 SOCs like Cavium ThunderX too. Therefore move > > > > these events to the common PMUv3 table. > > > > > > I can't find anything in the architecture that suggests these event > > > numbers are necessarily portable between implementations. Am I missing > > > something? > > > > Aha, I just noticed appendix K3.1 (silly me for missing it...). > > > > Lemme check whether or not that mandates that those encodings can't be > > used for wildly different things. > > To me it looks like we would just have duplicated code without the patch, > and at least the event types (e.g. L1D_CACHE_RD) should be identical > across implementations. > > But I don't care too much, so please tell me if should drop the patch or > keep it. Tell you what then -- how about we simply rename those to ARMV8_IMPDEF_* instead of ARMV8_A57_*? That way, we can easily identify them as distinct from the architected events if we need to in future. Will