Hi Sai,
On 01/22/2019 04:48 PM, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
Hi Suzuki,
On 1/22/2019 9:38 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
By inconsistent, I meant the registers provides values which are not
the same on two different CPUs of the *same type*. And it is expected
that two different CPU/ETM implementations will have different PIDs.
SDM845 has 4 Kryo 385 Gold (ARM A75) + 4 Kryo 385 Silver (ARM A55),
so the PID values should be same for 4 ETMs atleast. But here one
pid value(001bb803) is same for 6 ETMs and other one for 2
ETMs(001bb802) which seems odd and hence the doubt if these pids
are even valid ones.
Have you checked other SoCs with A55 for the ETM PID ? The drivers
usually only care about PID0[7-0], PID1[7-0], PID2[3-0] and ignores
the other fields that may change over revisions of the core. So, in your
case the ETM ID could be treated as 0xbb802 and 0xbb803.
Below are the PIDs read for SDM845:
[ 5.996448] resname=etm@7040000 pid=001bb803
[ 6.052891] resname=etm@7140000 pid=001bb803
<snip> .. (Same pid=001bb803 for etm@7240000 to etm@7540000 but differs
for other 2 cpus as shown below)
So thats 4 CPUs with 0x1bb803.
[ 6.266687] resname=etm@7640000 pid=001bb802
[ 6.329171] resname=etm@7740000 pid=001bb802
This is the case for MSM8996 also as shown below where PID
value is not correct and has to be hardcoded.
They differ because they are two different types of CPU cores (and
thus different ETM PIDs). What does the Register descriptions say for
the Cores ?
To me it looks like there are two different types of Qualcomm
Cores with their respective ETMs which are missing in the ETM4x
driver and we are trying to "make the ETM" work by faking it as
something else, which is not nice. I would rather prefer
to add the appropriate masks and the expected value for these
two different ETM implementations and be done with it, instead
of faking it in all the DTs where these cores appear.
ETM4x driver does not have entries for A55 and A75. Could you please
let me know the PIDs for these CPUs so that we can compare?
FWIW, here is the PID list:
A75: 0xB_BD_0A
A55: 0xB_BD_05
Btw, I am not sure if the ETM has been changed/tuned for the Cores in
SDM845. Please could you get this clarified internally within your
organisation ?
For MSM8996:
resname=etm@3b40000 pid=102f0205
I don't know what CPUs the MSM8996 have. If they don't have A53, you
must add the actual PIDs to the table once and for all.
But again, this PID is some invalid value. And does not correspond
to any of the ARM CPU cores and would be MSM8996 specific.
MSM8996 has 2+2 Kryo cores which are not ARM derivative as SDM845
if I am right.
As long as the JEP106 coding standard is followed and is indicated in
the appropriate fields (PIDR2[3]), we should be fine. In the case above:
PID of the ETM is 0xf0205, implies JEP106 code[6:0] of the designer is
0x70 and ETM part number is : 0x205, which makes sense to me.
+ etm@7040000 {
+ compatible = "arm,coresight-etm4x", "arm,primecell";
+ arm,primecell-periphid = <0x000bb95d> > + reg = <0
0x07040000 0 0x1000>;
+
+ cpu = <&CPU0>;
+
You seem to be specifying the PID of A53 ETM all over, while at least
one of your cores is ETMv4.2 (from the other patch) and A53 is not
ETMv4.2. As above, it would be good to add the PID to the table.
As explained in above comment, PID values read are not correct.
Please let me know if I am not clear.
There is no measure for "correctness" here. If the ETM exposes different
PID than what you expect from the TRM, then we could think of overriding
it. Otherwise please add the PIDs to the table.
This is exactly the case, ETM PID registers are exposing some invalid
value and hence we override in DT.
It would be good to have this clarified. I will check with the internal
teams here for any details.
Thanks
Suzuki
