[PATCH 5/9] perf utils: add support for arch standard events

[John Garry]

On 08/02/2018 13:55, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 01:45:00AM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>> For some architectures (like arm), there are architecture-
>> defined events. Sometimes these events may be "recommended"
>> according to the architecture standard, in that the
>> implementer is free ignore the "recommendation" and create
>> its custom event.
>>
>> This patch adds support for parsing standard events from
>> arch-defined JSONs, and fixing up vendor events when they
>> have implemented these events as standard.
>>
>> Support is also ensured that the vendor may implement their
>> own custom events.
>>
>> A new step is added to the pmu events parsing to fix up the
>> vendor events with the arch-standard events.
>>
>> The arch-defined JSONs must be placed in the arch root
>> folder for preprocessing prior to tree JSON processing.
>>
>> In the vendor JSON, to specify that the arch event is
>> supported, the keyword "ArchStdEvent" should be used,
>> like this:
>> [
>>     {
>>         "ArchStdEvent": "0x41",
>> 	"BriefDescription": "L1D cache access, write"
>>     },
>> ]
>>
>> No other JSON objects are strictly required. However,
>> for other objects added, these take precedence over
>> architecture defined standard events, thus supporting
>> separate events which have the same event code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry at huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/pmu-events/Build     |   1 +
>>  tools/perf/pmu-events/README    |   6 ++
>>  tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c | 185 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>  3 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/Build b/tools/perf/pmu-events/Build
>> index 999a4e8..f9e8466 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/Build
>> +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/Build
>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>  hostprogs := jevents
>>
>> +CHOSTFLAGS	= -I$(srctree)/tools/include
>
> Ithink this could be just CHOSTFLAGS_jevents.o = -I$(srctree)/tools/include

Fine, it could be argued to keep as is, but not a big deal

> it's just for the list.h right?
>

Right, for linux/list.h

John



> jirka
>
> .
>