On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 01:08-20130130, Ruslan Bilovol wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On 17:54-20130129, Ruslan Bilovol wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > The following patches update cpuinfo to print CPU >> > > model name for ARM. First patch exactly makes needed >> > > changes for ARM architecture. >> > > Second patch adds this ability to OMAP4 SoCs. >> > > >> > > This adds a common approach to show SoC name. >> > > >> > > Looks like there were few attempts to do similar >> > > changes to cpuinfo without any luck. >> > > >> > > So - comments are welcome >> > > >> > > Ruslan Bilovol (2): >> > > ARM: kernel: update cpuinfo to print CPU model name >> > > ARM: OMAP4: setup CPU model name during ID initialisation >> > >> > We had an discussion on similar lines but a generic suggestion: >> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/98720/ >> > SoCinfo framework which was supposed to introduce this >> > >> > Would'nt that be a better approach to take than an OMAP only solution? >> >> My goal is only to say what is the SoC model name in the /proc/cpuinfo >> (And it is not an OMAP-only solution - it is common. Support for OMAP >> is added in second patch) >> This is the only type of information that we can apply for any SoC. >> My point is - any SoC-specific information should go through some other >> way - like SoCinfo framework mentioned by you. >> And additional point - in cpuinfo we already have CPU name and Machine name. >> The SoC name (that is something between these two things) looks also relevant > Looking at the sample output in patch #1/2 > OMAP4470 ES1.0 HS > > OMAP4470 is SoC name > ES1.0 is SoC revision > HS is SoC type Will fix it in next patchseries. Let's leave only only SoC name > > We even have SoC features (e.g. at boot NEON etc..) > > Is the intent to put all this inside /proc/cpuinfo?? I bet every SoC has > it's own interesting data it'd like to have (like some of the info > populated by DT even). I am hardpressed to think this fits inside > /proc/cpuinfo. I might even suspect that the list of interesting > information might even vary per SoC. No, I don't think we need all these information in cpuinfo - just because it will be different for different SoC - so the file structure will be very different.. Let's have only SoC name in cpuinfo. > > having machine name is something ARM specific? dumping it on my linux > machines (x86[1] and sparc[2]) dont seem to show that. Yes - it's ARM specific. > > but in the interest of not breaking existing interfaces, new interfaces > should potentially belong elsewhere.. my 2 cents. > > [1] http://pastebin.com/CF8HPDAC (Xubuntu 12.04 3.2.0-36) > [2] http://pastebin.com/qNwWHwiu (Debian 3.2.35-2) Just look at changes in cpuinfo for ARM between kernels: 3.4 kernel: http://pastebin.com/TfmE7b2b 3.8-rc3: http://pastebin.com/zvvTGeNt The file structure has huge changes > -- > Regards, > Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
