Re: [PATCH 3/3] tools/perf/arch/powerc: Add get_arch_regnum for powerpc
From: Athira Rajeev <hidden>
Date: 2024-03-18 11:01:27
Also in:
linux-perf-users
On 09-Mar-2024, at 3:24 PM, Christophe Leroy [off-list ref] wrote: Le 09/03/2024 à 08:25, Athira Rajeev a écrit :quoted
The function get_dwarf_regnum() returns a DWARF register number from a register name string. This calls arch specific function get_arch_regnum to return register number for corresponding arch. Add mappings for register name to register number in powerpc code: arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c Signed-off-by: Athira Rajeev <redacted> --- tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c index 0c4f4caf53ac..d955e3e577ea 100644 --- a/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c +++ b/tools/perf/arch/powerpc/util/dwarf-regs.c@@ -98,3 +98,32 @@ int regs_query_register_offset(const char *name) return roff->ptregs_offset; return -EINVAL; } + +struct dwarf_regs_idx { + const char *name; + int idx; +}; + +static const struct dwarf_regs_idx powerpc_regidx_table[] = { + { "r0", 0 }, { "r1", 1 }, { "r2", 2 }, { "r3", 3 }, { "r4", 4 }, + { "r5", 5 }, { "r6", 6 }, { "r7", 7 }, { "r8", 8 }, { "r9", 9 }, + { "r10", 10 }, { "r11", 11 }, { "r12", 12 }, { "r13", 13 }, { "r14", 14 }, + { "r15", 15 }, { "r16", 16 }, { "r17", 17 }, { "r18", 18 }, { "r19", 19 }, + { "r20", 20 }, { "r21", 21 }, { "r22", 22 }, { "r23", 23 }, { "r24", 24 }, + { "r25", 25 }, { "r26", 26 }, { "r27", 27 }, { "r27", 27 }, { "r28", 28 }, + { "r29", 29 }, { "r30", 30 }, { "r31", 31 }, +}; + +int get_arch_regnum(const char *name) +{ + unsigned int i; + + if (*name != 'r') + return -EINVAL; + + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(powerpc_regidx_table); i++) + if (!strcmp(powerpc_regidx_table[i].name, name)) + return powerpc_regidx_table[i].idx;Can you do more simple ? Something like: int n; if (*name != 'r') return -EINVAL; n = atoi(name + 1); return n >= 0 && n < 32 ? n : -ENOENT;
Hi Christophe, Thanks for reviewing patch and for the suggestions. Sure, I will check this approach and address in V2 Thanks Athira
quoted
+ + return -ENOENT; +}