On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:14:31PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 06:17:49PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > This is a respin of Andrew Murray's series to enable support for 64-bit > > counters as introduced in ARMv8.5. > > > > I've given this a spin on (ARMv8.2) hardware, to test that there are no > > regressions, but I have not had the chance to test in an ARMv8.5 model > > (which I > > beleive Andrew had previously tested). > > > > Since v5 [1]: > > * Don't treat perfmon ID fields as signed > > * Fix up ID field names > > * Explicitly compare ARMV8.5 PMU value > > I'm betting on your issue being a model bug, so I've queued this on top of > Robin's enable/disable rework. Please take a look at for-next/perf [1] in > case I screwed it up.
>From a cursory review, that all looks good to me. I'll poke if the issue turns out to be anything beyond a model bug. but I agree it seems that's all it is. Thanks, Mark. > > Thanks, > > Will > > [1] > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git/log/?h=for-next/perf _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
