On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:00:46PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:08 PM Jing Zhang <renyu.zj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 在 2023/6/21 上午3:04, Namhyung Kim 写道: > > > I'm curious why the first patch is needed, presumably the PMU > > > should have 'ali_drw' in the name already. Do we use substring > > > match for the compat name in the JSON metric? > > > > > > > The main purpose of patch 1 is to add an identifier so that the Compat > > field can match the corresponding event when defining aliases or metrics > > for events. > > > > For example, "Unit" can match "ali_drw" in the name and different SoCs may > > be able to match ali_drw, but they may have different events, and even if > > the events are the same, the meanings may be different. Therefore, the > > Compat field is needed to match the Identifier to confirm which type and > > revision of PMU the current SoC has. Therefore, both "Unit" and "Compat" > > need to be matched at the same time. Although it seems that ali_drw is > > redundantly matched currently, it is meaningful for future expansion. > > I see, thanks for the explanation. > > I think you need to route the kernel patch differently. I can apply the tools > part once the kernel patch gets Acks from others. Sorry, I missed this initially as I didn't realise there were kernel changes hidden in this series (I saw "JSON" and ignored it...). Given that the 6.5 merge window is now open, I'll pick the kernel change up for 6.6 when I start queueing patches in a few weeks. Will
