Hi Eric,
On 10/30/20 5:09 PM, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Alexandru,
>
> On 10/30/20 4:59 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> [..]
>>>> + spe.align = 1 << spe.align;
>>>> +
>>>> + pmsidr = read_sysreg_s(SYS_PMSIDR_EL1);
>>>> +
>>>> + interval = (pmsidr >> SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_INTERVAL_SHIFT) & SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_INTERVAL_MASK;
>>>> + spe.min_interval = spe_min_interval(interval);
>>>> +
>>>> + spe.max_record_size = (pmsidr >> SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_MAXSIZE_SHIFT) & \
>>>> + SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_MAXSIZE_MASK;
>>>> + spe.max_record_size = 1 << spe.max_record_size;
>>>> +
>>>> + spe.countsize = (pmsidr >> SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_COUNTSIZE_SHIFT) & \
>>>> + SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_COUNTSIZE_MASK;
>>>> +
>>>> + spe.fl_cap = pmsidr & BIT(SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_FL_SHIFT);
>>>> + spe.ft_cap = pmsidr & BIT(SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_FT_SHIFT);
>>>> + spe.fe_cap = pmsidr & BIT(SYS_PMSIDR_EL1_FE_SHIFT);
>>> Why did you remove the report_info() section? I think those human
>>> readable info can be useful.
>> I made them part of the test. Since the architecture says they are 1, I think
>> making sure their value matches is more useful than printing something that the
>> architecture guarantees.
> OK for those caps which are always 1 anyway but I was more thinking about
>
> report_info("Align= %d bytes, Min Interval=%d Single record Max Size =
> %d bytes", spe.align, spe.min_interval, spe.maxsize);
>
> I'd prefer to keep it.
Oh, I think I see what you mean, I chose to print them using printf in main().
This is very similar to what the timer test does, only it does it directly in
main(), instead of calling another function (print_timer_info(), in the case of
the timer test). I can move the printfs to spe_probe() if that's what you prefer.
Thanks,
Alex
