I also really dislike this. What's the preferred way to identify the SoCfrom 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.
BTW, Shaokun now tells me that the HiSi uncore PMU HW have such registers to identify the implementation. I didn't know.
So we could add that identifier file for those PMUs as proof-of-concept, exposing that register.
As for other PMUs which I'm interested in, again, future versions should have such registers to self-identify.
So using something derived from the DT compat string would hopefully be the uncommon case.
Cheers, John
