On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:35:32AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:

On 09/16/2016 08:29 AM, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 05:32:35PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:

quoted

On systems with multiple PMU types the PMU to CPU affinity
needs to be detected and set. The CPU to interrupt affinity
should also be set.

(trimming)

quoted

quoted

			continue;
		ret = info->init(pmu);
+		/*
+		 * if this pmu declaration is unspecified and we have
+		 * previously found a PMU on this platform then append
+		 * a PMU number to the pmu name. This avoids changing
+		 * the names of PMUs that are specific to a class of CPUs.
+		 * The assumption is that if we match a specific PMU in the
+		 * provided pmu_probe_info then it's unique, and another PMU
+		 * in the system will match a different entry rather than
+		 * needing the _number to assure its unique.
+		 */
+		if ((!info->cpuid) && (duplicate_pmus)) {

Hmm, the duplicate_pmus check looks a little odd here. Doesn't it mean
that you'd end up with things like:

"arm,armv8-pmuv3"
"arm,armv8-pmuv3_1"

which looks needlessly fiddly to parse. Is this intentional?

Well, IIRC, you recommend that format, or maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, per
the comment I'm trying to assure that legacy platform devices don't
accidentally get a "_X" appended to their name and break something.

Ah, right, for the old 32-bit platforms that rely on probing, Gotcha.

Will