[PATCH] drivers: CCI: add ARM CCI PMU support

[Kumar Gala]

On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:13 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:

> On 08/14/2013 03:09 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> 
>>> On 07/23/2013 03:19 AM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>>>> The CCI PMU can profile bus transactions at the master and slave
>>>> interfaces of the CCI. The PMU can be used to observe an aggregated view
>>>> of the bus traffic between the various components connected to the CCI.
>>>> 
>>>> Extend the existing CCI driver to support the PMU by registering a perf
>>>> backend for it.
>>>> 
>>>> Document the device tree binding to describe the CCI PMU.
>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cci.txt
>>> 
>>>> +	- CCI PMU node
>>>> +
>>>> +		Node name must be "pmu".
>>> 
>>> I don't think the binding should require the node to have a particular
>>> name; node names shouldn't be interpret/used/relied-upon by drivers.
>> 
>> While I agree with that, we should be aiming for some convention and consistency with node names.
> 
> Sure. Should there be a Documentation/devictree/bindings/node-names that
> lists common node names for people to use? Either way though, I still
> think this is an aspect of authoring the *.dts file, not an aspect of
> the DT binding? After all, what if there were more than one CCI so they
> needed to be named pmu at 0, pmu at 1, etc.?

Agreed, I was thinking a bindings/node-names would be a good idea.

I'm guessing 99% of people copy either from the example in the binding of an existing .dts file.  So while I agree the binding shouldn't require a node name be a specific thing as part of the spec, we as reviewers should try to ensure consistency in examples or .dts files.

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation