Hi, On 2020/5/27 22:34, John Garry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> > > BTW, Shaokun now tells me that the HiSi uncore PMU HW have such registers to identify the implementation. I didn't know. > Right, we have this register which shows the PMU version. Thanks, Shaokun > 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 > > . >
