On 2024-07-03 08:09, Zenghui Yu wrote:
On 2024/7/3 0:35, Alex Bennée wrote:
The test for number of events is not a substitute for properly
checking the feature register. Fix the define and skip if PMUv3 is not
available on the system. This includes emulator such as QEMU which
don't implement PMU counters as a matter of policy.
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arm/pmu.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arm/pmu.c b/arm/pmu.c
index 9ff7a301..66163a40 100644
--- a/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/arm/pmu.c
@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static void test_overflow_interrupt(bool
overflow_at_64bits) {}
#define ID_AA64DFR0_PERFMON_MASK 0xf
#define ID_DFR0_PMU_NOTIMPL 0b0000
-#define ID_DFR0_PMU_V3 0b0001
+#define ID_DFR0_PMU_V3 0b0011
Why? This is a macro used for AArch64 and DDI0487J.a (D19.2.59, the
description of the PMUVer field) says that
"0b0001 Performance Monitors Extension, PMUv3 implemented."
while 0b0011 is a reserved value.
I think this is a mix of 32bit and 64bit views (ID_DFR0_EL1.PerfMon
instead of ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVer), and the whole thing is a mess
(ID_AA64DFR0_PERFMON_MASK is clearly confused...).
I haven't looked at how this patch fits in the rest of the code though.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
