Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 16:25:51 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To:     Nick Forrington <nick.forrington@arm.com>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf vendor events: Add missing Neoverse V1 events
Message-ID: <YxJYv0IfvmL1BTrX@kernel.org>
References: <20220901151804.294823-1-nick.forrington@arm.com>
 <c17d8229-6029-3fd6-1ce5-f406962eae8f@huawei.com>
 <6813a737-736d-7e15-a44f-d800ed9248be@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6813a737-736d-7e15-a44f-d800ed9248be@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

Em Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:12:49PM +0100, Nick Forrington escreveu:
> On 02/09/2022 09:04, John Garry wrote:
> > On 01/09/2022 16:18, Nick Forrington wrote:
> > > Based on updated data from:
> > > https://github.com/ARM-software/data/blob/master/pmu/neoverse-v1.json
> > > 
> > > which is based on PMU event descriptions from the Arm Neoverse V1
> > > Technical Reference Manual.
> > > 
> > > This adds the following missing events:
> > > ASE_INST_SPEC
> > > SVE_INST_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_EMPTY_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_FULL_SPEC
> > > SVE_PRED_PARTIAL_SPEC
> > > SVE_LDFF_SPEC
> > > SVE_LDFF_FAULT_SPEC
> > > FP_SCALE_OPS_SPEC
> > > FP_FIXED_OPS_SPEC
> > > 
> > > It also moves REMOTE_ACCESS from other.json to memory.json.
> > 
> > Any specific reason why? I see that neoverse n2 and a76-n1 still use
> > "other" json for REMOTE_ACCESS. Nicer to be consistent.
> 
> Thanks John, I agree on consistency.
> 
> I think memory is a better categorisation (for all CPUs), and this is
> consistent with what I submitted for various Cortex CPUs a while back.

Were those patches processed or is some still outstanding?
 
> I'd be happy to remove the REMOTE_ACCESS change here and update (or not)
> REMOTE_ACCESS for Neoverse separately.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nick Forrington<nick.forrington@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Apart from above:
> > Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> Thanks, Nick

So, how should we proceed?

- Arnaldo