On Wednesday 20 January 2016 04:10 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:

On Mon, 2016-01-11 at 15:58 +0530, Anju T wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 9a7057e..c4ce60d 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig

@@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ config PPC
 	select GENERIC_ATOMIC64 if PPC32
 	select ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC64_DEC_IF_POSITIVE
 	select HAVE_PERF_EVENTS
+	select HAVE_PERF_REGS
 	select HAVE_REGS_AND_STACK_ACCESS_API
 	select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT if PERF_EVENTS && PPC_BOOK3S_64
 	select ARCH_WANT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/perf_regs.c b/arch/powerpc/perf/perf_regs.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d32581763
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/perf_regs.c

...

quoted

+
+u64 perf_reg_abi(struct task_struct *task)
+{
+	return PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_64;

What is this value used for exactly?

It seems like on 32-bit kernels we should be returning PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_32.

Yes. you are right. But even in 64bit kernel, based on the application
we need to return 32 to 64 abi. Damn my bad. missed 32bit part
all together.


Maddy

quoted

+}
+
+void perf_get_regs_user(struct perf_regs *regs_user,
+			struct pt_regs *regs,
+			struct pt_regs *regs_user_copy)
+{
+	regs_user->regs = task_pt_regs(current);
+	regs_user->abi  = perf_reg_abi(current);
+}

cheers

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev