Re: [PATCH 3/5] arm64: perf: Support new DT compatibles

On 2021-12-07 18:44, Mark Rutland wrote:

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:20:41PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:

quoted

Wire up the new DT compatibles so we can present appropriate
PMU names to userspace for the latest and greatest CPUs.

Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
---
  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
index 57720372da62..3fe4dcfc28d4 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c

@@ -1215,6 +1215,26 @@ static int armv8_a78_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
  	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv8_cortex_a78", NULL);
  }
  
+static int armv9_a510_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
+{
+	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv9_cortex_a510", NULL);
+}
+
+static int armv9_a710_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
+{
+	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv9_cortex_a710", NULL);
+}
+
+static int armv8_x1_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
+{
+	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv8_cortex_x1", NULL);
+}
+
+static int armv9_x2_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
+{
+	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv9_cortex_x2", NULL);
+}

I wonder if it'd be better to do something like:

#define PMU_INIT_SIMPLE(name)						\
static int name##_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)			\
{
	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, #name, NULL);		\
}

PMU_INIT_SIMPLE(armv9_cortex_a510)
PMU_INIT_SIMPLE(armv9_cortex_a710)
PMU_INIT_SIMPLE(armv8_xortex_x1)
PMU_INIT_SIMPLE(armv9_xortex_x2)

... and fix up the armv8_pmu_of_device_ids[] table to use the longer init names
that results in?

Indeed I did ponder doing almost exactly that, but at that point I'd 
rather try refactoring a bit deeper to convert most of the arm_pmu init 
business to pure data, so I figured I'd chuck in the simple tweak to 
mitigate these new additions with minimal churn, then have a go at the 
bigger change in its own right.

Otherwise, looks good to me.

Thanks!

Robin.

Thanks,
Mark.

quoted

+
  static int armv8_e1_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
  {
  	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv8_neoverse_e1", NULL);

@@ -1225,6 +1245,16 @@ static int armv8_n1_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
  	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv8_neoverse_n1", NULL);
  }
  
+static int armv9_n2_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
+{
+	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv9_neoverse_n2", NULL);
+}
+
+static int armv8_v1_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
+{
+	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv8_neoverse_v1", NULL);
+}
+
  static int armv8_thunder_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
  {
  	return armv8_pmu_init_nogroups(cpu_pmu, "armv8_cavium_thunder",

@@ -1251,8 +1281,14 @@ static const struct of_device_id armv8_pmu_of_device_ids[] = {
  	{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a76-pmu",	.data = armv8_a76_pmu_init},
  	{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a77-pmu",	.data = armv8_a77_pmu_init},
  	{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a78-pmu",	.data = armv8_a78_pmu_init},
+	{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a510-pmu",	.data = armv9_a510_pmu_init},
+	{.compatible = "arm,cortex-a710-pmu",	.data = armv9_a710_pmu_init},
+	{.compatible = "arm,cortex-x1-pmu",	.data = armv8_x1_pmu_init},
+	{.compatible = "arm,cortex-x2-pmu",	.data = armv9_x2_pmu_init},
  	{.compatible = "arm,neoverse-e1-pmu",	.data = armv8_e1_pmu_init},
  	{.compatible = "arm,neoverse-n1-pmu",	.data = armv8_n1_pmu_init},
+	{.compatible = "arm,neoverse-n2-pmu",	.data = armv9_n2_pmu_init},
+	{.compatible = "arm,neoverse-v1-pmu",	.data = armv8_v1_pmu_init},
  	{.compatible = "cavium,thunder-pmu",	.data = armv8_thunder_pmu_init},
  	{.compatible = "brcm,vulcan-pmu",	.data = armv8_vulcan_pmu_init},
  	{},

-- 
2.28.0.dirty