On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:26:27PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:07:03AM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:

quoted

On 27.09.10 16:01:38, Matt Fleming wrote:

quoted

Well, ARM doesn't have names as strings for its pmus currently. What's
more, ARM wouldn't use it; SH would be the only user of this function. I
don't think this one makes sense to be a generic function.

Er, what? Yes it does. It has this silly id to string mapping thing that
is at present duplicated between the perf and the oprofile code for no
reason. Having a generic (albeit optional) perf_pmu_name() would allow
this to be cleaned up.

quoted

As the implementation of the function would be optional, why should we
make it architectural?

I don't see why we should pollute the perf namespace with a function
that is only being used inside the SH oprofile code? There would be
exactly one use of this function and I doubt the perf guys will want
this function exposed. In it's current state, it really is no use to any
architecture other than SH.

This has nothing at all to do with the SH oprofile code and everything to
do with oprofile in general. This is the vary basis for the CPU model
matching in the oprofile userspace tools, it's string based by design.
Given that we're already seeing architetures double up their strings in
both places, this really wants a consensus and to be dealt with before
other architetures start getting the wrong idea.