On 2023-04-06 17:44, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:40:40 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 11:16:07AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
In the long run I agree it would be good. Short term there are more instances of
struct pmu that don't have parents than those that do (even after this series).
We need to figure out what to do about those before adding checks on it being
set.
Right, I don't think you've touched *any* of the x86 PMUs for example,
and getting everybody that boots an x86 kernel a warning isn't going to
go over well :-)
It was tempting :) "Warning: Parentless PMU: try a different architecture."
I'd love some inputs on what the x86 PMU devices parents should be?
CPU counters in general tend to just spin out of deep in the architecture code.
My overall favorite is an l2 cache related PMU that is spun up in
arch/arm/kernel/irq.c init_IRQ()
I'm just not going to try and figure out why...
I think that's simply because the PMU support was hung off the existing
PL310 configuration code, which still supports non-DT boardfiles. The
PMU shouldn't strictly need to be registered that early, it would just
be a bunch more work to ensure that a platform device is available for
it to bind to as a regular driver model driver, which wasn't justifiable
at the time.
Thanks,
Robin.
