On 21/05/2020 14:04, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 09:23:41AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 1:33 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:51:25PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:31:13PM +0800, Joakim Zhang wrote:
+static ssize_t ddr_perf_identifier_show(struct device *dev,
+ struct device_attribute *attr,
+ char *page)
+{
+ struct ddr_pmu *pmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+
+ return sprintf(page, "%s\n", pmu->devtype_data->identifier);
Why do we need yet another way to identify the SoC from userspace?
I also really dislike this. What's the preferred way to identify the SoC
from userspace?
/proc/cpuinfo? ;)
The *SoC*!
For an non-firmware specific case, I'd say soc_device should be. I'd
guess ACPI systems don't use it and for them it's dmidecode typically.
The other problem I have with soc_device is it is optional.
Hi Will,
John -- what do you think about using soc_device to expose this information,
with ACPI systems using DMI data instead?
Generally I don't think that DMI is reliable, and I saw this as the
least preferred choice. I'm looking at the sysfs DMI info for my dev
board, and I don't even see anything like a SoC identifier.
As for the event_source device sysfs identifier file, it would not
always contain effectively the same as the SoC ID.
Certain PMUs which I'm interested in plan to have probe-able
identification info available in future.
Thanks,
John
