lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] arm_pmu: acpi: Add a representative platform device for TRBE
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 04:57:31PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> ACPI TRBE does not have a HID for identification which could create and add
> a platform device into the platform bus. Also without a platform device, it
> cannot be probed and bound to a platform driver.
>
> This creates a dummy platform device for TRBE after ascertaining that ACPI
> provides required interrupts uniformly across all cpus on the system. This
> device gets created inside drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c to accommodate TRBE
> being built as a module.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>

--->8

> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
> index 90815ad762eb..dd3df6729808 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
> @@ -139,6 +139,68 @@ static inline void arm_spe_acpi_register_device(void)
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_ARM_SPE_PMU */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CORESIGHT_TRBE
> +static struct resource trbe_acpi_resources[] = {
> + {
> + /* irq */
> + .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
> + }
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_device trbe_acpi_dev = {
> + .name = ARMV8_TRBE_PDEV_NAME,
> + .id = -1,
> + .resource = trbe_acpi_resources,
> + .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(trbe_acpi_resources)
> +};
> +
> +static void arm_trbe_acpi_register_device(void)
> +{
> + int cpu, hetid, irq, ret;
> + bool first = true;
> + u16 gsi = 0;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
> +
> + gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
> + if (gicc->header.length < ACPI_MADT_GICC_TRBE)
> + return;
> +
> + if (first) {
> + gsi = gicc->trbe_interrupt;
> + if (!gsi)
> + return;
> +
> + hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
> + first = false;
> + } else if ((gsi != gicc->trbe_interrupt) ||
> + (hetid != find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu))) {
> + pr_warn("ACPI: TRBE must be homogeneous\n");
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + irq = acpi_register_gsi(NULL, gsi, ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE, ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH);
> + if (irq < 0) {
> + pr_warn("ACPI: TRBE Unable to register interrupt: %d\n", gsi);
> + return;
> + }
> + trbe_acpi_resources[0].start = irq;
> +
> + ret = platform_device_register(&trbe_acpi_dev);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + pr_warn("ACPI: TRBE: Unable to register device\n");
> + acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
> + }
> +}
> +#else
> +static inline void arm_trbe_acpi_register_device(void)
> +{
> +
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_CORESIGHT_TRBE */

This looks like you ran s/spe/trbe/ over the SPE device registration
code :)

Please can you refactor things so we don't have all the duplication? I
suspect this won't be the last device which needs the same treatement.

Cheers,

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-07-28 16:41    [W:0.143 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site