On 2023-06-01 04:01, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
Some platforms may use e.g. different filtering mechanism and, thus,
may need different way to validate the events.
Signed-off-by: Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c | 4 ++++
drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
index b4c4ef81c719..a26f484e06b1 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
@@ -593,6 +593,10 @@ static int arm_cspmu_get_event_idx(struct arm_cspmu_hw_events *hw_events,
if (idx >= cspmu->num_logical_ctrs)
return -EAGAIN;
+ if (cspmu->impl.ops.validate_event &&
+ !cspmu->impl.ops.validate_event(cspmu, event))
+ return -EAGAIN;
Seems like this should be -EINVAL, or maybe the callback should return
int so it can make its own distinction (yes, I know the outer logic
doesn't actually propagate it, but there's no reason that couldn't
improve at some point as well).
Another thought is that once we get into imp-def conditions for whether
an event is valid in itself, we presumably also need to consider imp-def
conditions for whether a given pair of events are compatible to be grouped?
Thanks,
Robin.
+
set_bit(idx, hw_events->used_ctrs);
return idx;
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
index 4a29b921f7e8..0e5c316c96f9 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
@@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ struct arm_cspmu_impl_ops {
void (*set_ev_filter)(struct arm_cspmu *cspmu,
struct hw_perf_event *hwc,
u32 filter);
+ /* Implementation specific event validation */
+ bool (*validate_event)(struct arm_cspmu *cspmu, struct perf_event *new);
/* Hide/show unsupported events */
umode_t (*event_attr_is_visible)(struct kobject *kobj,
struct attribute *attr, int unused);
