[...] >>> > >>> > Looks OK, apart from adding linux/coresight-pmu.h to the manifest, but I >>> > mentioned that on another patch. >>> > >>> > However there is no decoder, which begs the question, is there anything >>> > you >>> > can actually do with the perf.data file? Might be a bit confusing for >>> > users >>> > if they can capture traces but not use perf tools on the resulting >>> > perf.data >>> > file? >>> >>> We are working on a decoding library in parallel to this work. >> >> Would be nice to be able to get both in the same patch kit, no? So that >> one can both record and process the traces, verifying it all works. > > We are still a few weeks away from being in a position where the > community can start playing with the decoding library. I can hold off > on the "perf tools" patches when I queue the kernel side of the work > for 4.6 but since you and Adrian have already reviewed the work it > would be nice to have that part included as well. > > We've been playing with the perf.data files for a couple of months now > and things look at the right place. This isn't surprising since we > are using the same framework as X86. > > I think the generation of the perf.data file should be coupled with > the submission of the kernel driver but would also respect a diverging > point of view. Simply let me know what you prefer and I will adjust > V9 accordingly.
Arnaldo, I'm preparing V9 at this time - what's your view on the above? Thanks, Mathieu
