2010/5/11 Eduardo Valentin <[email protected]>:
> Here is the version 5 of the change to export OMAP data to userspace
> (name, revision, id code, production id and die id).
>
> Basically, this version is still attempting to create a new file under /proc.
> It is the /proc/socinfo, which should be used to export bits which are SoC specific
> (not CPU related, nor machine related).
>
> So, differences between previous version are:
> - merged patch 02/04 with 03/04 to avoid compilation breakages.
> - simplified the seq_file usage by using the single_open and single_release functions
> - exported a function to register a seq_operation .show callback
> - adapted the changes accordingly
>
> As usual, comments are welcome.
Eduardo, what has happened to this patchset?
Now we need something similar for arch/arm/mach-ux500 and I was sort of
hoping that this infrastructure would be in place already... wrong I was.
Do you want help in picking it up and try to polish it up?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Hello Linus,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:58:00PM +0100, ext Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2010/5/11 Eduardo Valentin <[email protected]>:
>
> > Here is the version 5 of the change to export OMAP data to userspace
> > (name, revision, id code, production id and die id).
> >
> > Basically, this version is still attempting to create a new file under /proc.
> > It is the /proc/socinfo, which should be used to export bits which are SoC specific
> > (not CPU related, nor machine related).
> >
> > So, differences between previous version are:
> > - merged patch 02/04 with 03/04 to avoid compilation breakages.
> > - simplified the seq_file usage by using the single_open and single_release functions
> > - exported a function to register a seq_operation .show callback
> > - adapted the changes accordingly
> >
> > As usual, comments are welcome.
>
> Eduardo, what has happened to this patchset?
Got forgotten :-(. Unfortunately I didn't pushed it hard enough.
>
> Now we need something similar for arch/arm/mach-ux500 and I was sort of
> hoping that this infrastructure would be in place already... wrong I was.
Right.
>
> Do you want help in picking it up and try to polish it up?
Yeah, but it would need a refactoring. IIRC, result of last discussion was that
we should not mess with /proc. So, maybe moving back to something under sysfs.
Perhaps /sys/devices/soc or so?
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
--
Eduardo Valentin
Hello Eduardo,
On 02/16/2011 12:57 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hello Linus,
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:58:00PM +0100, ext Linus Walleij wrote:
>> 2010/5/11 Eduardo Valentin<[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Here is the version 5 of the change to export OMAP data to userspace
>>> (name, revision, id code, production id and die id).
>>>
>>> Basically, this version is still attempting to create a new file under /proc.
>>> It is the /proc/socinfo, which should be used to export bits which are SoC specific
>>> (not CPU related, nor machine related).
>>>
>>> So, differences between previous version are:
>>> - merged patch 02/04 with 03/04 to avoid compilation breakages.
>>> - simplified the seq_file usage by using the single_open and single_release functions
>>> - exported a function to register a seq_operation .show callback
>>> - adapted the changes accordingly
>>>
>>> As usual, comments are welcome.
>> Eduardo, what has happened to this patchset?
> Got forgotten :-(. Unfortunately I didn't pushed it hard enough.
I propose to refactor your patchset, moving from procfs to sysfs.
>> Do you want help in picking it up and try to polish it up?
> Yeah, but it would need a refactoring. IIRC, result of last discussion was that
> we should not mess with /proc. So, maybe moving back to something under sysfs.
> Perhaps /sys/devices/soc or so?
About the location of this new sysfs entry, where do you think it should be?
I propose to create a new directory named "soc" in /sys/devices/system/.
As platform vendors have several/different kind of IDs to export to
sysfs, I propose each vendor to create file entries related to their IDs
(eg. /sys/devices/system/soc/idcode for OMAP platforms).
However, I think we should have a common file entry to export the unique
ID of the platforms. Indeed, user-space applications should have a
unified way to get this kind of ID, regardless of the platform (eg.
/sys/devices/system/soc/unique_id).
Do you agree with my proposal?
Thanks for your comments.
Regards,
Maxime Coquelin
On 02/28/2011 02:28 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> Hello Eduardo,
>
> On 02/16/2011 12:57 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>> Eduardo, what has happened to this patchset?
>> Got forgotten :-(. Unfortunately I didn't pushed it hard enough.
> I propose to refactor your patchset, moving from procfs to sysfs.
>>> Do you want help in picking it up and try to polish it up?
>> Yeah, but it would need a refactoring. IIRC, result of last discussion
>> was that we should not mess with /proc. So, maybe moving back
>> to something under sysfs. Perhaps /sys/devices/soc or so?
> About the location of this new sysfs entry, where do you think it should
> be?
> I propose to create a new directory named "soc" in /sys/devices/system/.
>
> As platform vendors have several/different kind of IDs to export to
> sysfs, I propose each vendor to create file entries related to their IDs
> (eg. /sys/devices/system/soc/idcode for OMAP platforms).
I think the path /sys/devices/system/soc/ will work for the MSM too. I
would have ideally liked it to be /sys/devices/system/soc/msm,
/sys/devices/system/soc/omap, etc, but we can't get to pick names for
devices under a class. So, we can make do with /sys/devices/system/soc/.
> However, I think we should have a common file entry to export the unique
> ID of the platforms. Indeed, user-space applications should have a
> unified way to get this kind of ID, regardless of the platform (eg.
> /sys/devices/system/soc/unique_id).
I like the idea of have a common file across all implementations that
will let user space identify what implementation is exporting the other
files and how to interpret them.
I would like to propose an "arch" file to identify the arch the soc info
file are for. I'm guessing within an arch, the soc files would mostly be
the same? If there are other minor differences, we can let the arch
specific code deal with how the files are interpreted.
Does "arch" work for everyone?
Thanks,
Saravana
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Saravana Kannan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 02:28 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>
>> Hello Eduardo,
>>
>> On 02/16/2011 12:57 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Eduardo, what has happened to this patchset?
>>>
>>> Got forgotten :-(. Unfortunately I didn't pushed it hard enough.
>>
>> I propose to refactor your patchset, moving from procfs to sysfs.
>
>>>> Do you want help in picking it up and try to polish it up?
>>>
>>> Yeah, but it would need a refactoring. IIRC, result of last discussion
>>> was that we should not mess with /proc. So, maybe moving back
>
>>> to something under sysfs. Perhaps /sys/devices/soc or so?
>>
>> About the location of this new sysfs entry, where do you think it should
>> be?
>> I propose to create a new directory named "soc" in /sys/devices/system/.
>>
>> As platform vendors have several/different kind of IDs to export to
>> sysfs, I propose each vendor to create file entries related to their IDs
>> (eg. /sys/devices/system/soc/idcode for OMAP platforms).
>
> I think the path /sys/devices/system/soc/ will work for the MSM too. I would
> have ideally liked it to be /sys/devices/system/soc/msm,
> /sys/devices/system/soc/omap, etc, but we can't get to pick names for
> devices under a class. So, we can make do with /sys/devices/system/soc/.
>
>> However, I think we should have a common file entry to export the unique
>> ID of the platforms. Indeed, user-space applications should have a
>> unified way to get this kind of ID, regardless of the platform (eg.
>> /sys/devices/system/soc/unique_id).
>
> I like the idea of have a common file across all implementations that will
> let user space identify what implementation is exporting the other files and
> how to interpret them.
>
> I would like to propose an "arch" file to identify the arch the soc info
> file are for. I'm guessing within an arch, the soc files would mostly be the
> same? If there are other minor differences, we can let the arch specific
> code deal with how the files are interpreted.
>
> Does "arch" work for everyone?
>
Sorry to butt in, but what kind of info are you guys talking about?
Like SOC revision, serial numbers, etc...?
What would an "arch" file mean? The name of the soc platform?
On 03/01/2011 05:13 PM, Andrei Warkentin wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Saravana Kannan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 02/28/2011 02:28 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Eduardo,
>>>
>>> On 02/16/2011 12:57 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Eduardo, what has happened to this patchset?
>>>>
>>>> Got forgotten :-(. Unfortunately I didn't pushed it hard enough.
>>>
>>> I propose to refactor your patchset, moving from procfs to sysfs.
>>
>>>>> Do you want help in picking it up and try to polish it up?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but it would need a refactoring. IIRC, result of last discussion
>>>> was that we should not mess with /proc. So, maybe moving back
>>
>>>> to something under sysfs. Perhaps /sys/devices/soc or so?
>>>
>>> About the location of this new sysfs entry, where do you think it should
>>> be?
>>> I propose to create a new directory named "soc" in /sys/devices/system/.
>>>
>>> As platform vendors have several/different kind of IDs to export to
>>> sysfs, I propose each vendor to create file entries related to their IDs
>>> (eg. /sys/devices/system/soc/idcode for OMAP platforms).
>>
>> I think the path /sys/devices/system/soc/ will work for the MSM too. I would
>> have ideally liked it to be /sys/devices/system/soc/msm,
>> /sys/devices/system/soc/omap, etc, but we can't get to pick names for
>> devices under a class. So, we can make do with /sys/devices/system/soc/.
>>
>>> However, I think we should have a common file entry to export the unique
>>> ID of the platforms. Indeed, user-space applications should have a
>>> unified way to get this kind of ID, regardless of the platform (eg.
>>> /sys/devices/system/soc/unique_id).
>>
>> I like the idea of have a common file across all implementations that will
>> let user space identify what implementation is exporting the other files and
>> how to interpret them.
>>
>> I would like to propose an "arch" file to identify the arch the soc info
>> file are for. I'm guessing within an arch, the soc files would mostly be the
>> same? If there are other minor differences, we can let the arch specific
>> code deal with how the files are interpreted.
>>
>> Does "arch" work for everyone?
>>
>
> Sorry to butt in, but what kind of info are you guys talking about?
Please do butt in :-), that's what a community discussion is for.
> Like SOC revision, serial numbers, etc...?
Like SOC type (to identify different chipsets), revision, etc.
> What would an "arch" file mean? The name of the soc platform?
The arch file would pretty much be the "xxxx" from arch/arm/mach-xxxx or
similar paths. If that info is already available elsewhere, then that
file is not needed. I proposed using the arch since that will remove the
need to maintain some database of unique/reserved names/numbers for each
implementation of socinfo (like the machinetypes list we have).
-Saravana
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.