Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752972Ab0ATOmY (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:42:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751695Ab0ATOmX (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:42:23 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:45384 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768Ab0ATOmW (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:42:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:41:40 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Jamie Iles , jpihet@mvista.com, p.osciak@samsung.com, will.deacon@arm.com, =?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82?= Nazarewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, mingo@elte.hu, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tomasz Fujak Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v1 0/2] Human readable performance event description in sysfs Message-ID: <20100120144140.GB22897@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1263978706-15499-1-git-send-email-t.fujak@samsung.com> <1263978999.4283.823.camel@laptop> <20100120133145.GE4089@wear.picochip.com> <1263994779.4283.1057.camel@laptop> <20100120135553.GA22897@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1263996080.4283.1064.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1263996080.4283.1064.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2436 Lines: 51 On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:01:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 13:55 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, it isn't. CPU identification has become a fairly murky > > business on ARM that the information exported from /proc/cpuinfo can > > no longer precisely identify the CPU itself. > > > > For example, we just treat Cortex A8 and A9 as "ARMv7" because from the > > kernel's point of view, they're the same. > > Would it make sense to extend arm's cpuinfo to include enough > information so that userspace can indeed do this? The idea that "I'm running on a Cortex A9" is no longer provided by the new CPU ID scheme. Instead, what's now provided is a set of registers which describe various individual features of the CPU: - ThumbEE ISA level, Jazelle ISA level, Thumb ISA level, ARM ISA level. - Programmer model (not much here that userspace would be interested in) - Debug model (memory mapped/co-processor, v6 debug architecture, v7 debug architecture.) - Four 32-bit registers describing the memory model. Note that pre-ARMv6k does not provide this information. Plus, the interpretation of these registers change between ARMv6k and ARMv7 - and I wouldn't be surprised if the interpretation changes in the future - just like the 'cache type' register completely changed format on ARMv7. > It seems to me userspace might care about the exact platform they're > running on. It may wanted to care at one time, but as time goes on, knowing what the high-level chip is will be come irrelevent, and is actually the wrong question. The real questions that userspace needs to ask are the specific ones, such as "what ARM ISA level is supported? what Thumb ISA level is supported? what debug model is implemented?" Given that history has shown that identification schemes on ARM change in extremely annoying ways, I don't think decoding these registers to some kind of textual representation for /proc/cpuinfo is the right approach. It might instead make more sense to just export the entire set of CPU ID registers to userspace, and let userspace grapple with the complexities of decoding the information it wants from them. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/