On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:40:42AM -0600, Kim Phillips wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:03:48 +0000
> Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > +#define DRVNAME "arm_spe_pmu"
>
> PMU is implied. "arm_spe"?
As stated before, I'm going for consistency here. Is it causing any
real issues on the tooling side?
> > + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) {
> > + if (attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv)
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + } else if (!attr->exclude_hv) {
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + }
> > +
> > + reg = arm_spe_event_to_pmsfcr(event);
> > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FE_SHIFT)) &&
> > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_EVT))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FT_SHIFT)) &&
> > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_TYP))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + if ((reg & BIT(PMSFCR_EL1_FL_SHIFT)) &&
> > + !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_FILT_LAT))
> > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Please insert pr_* statements before blindly returning errors before a
> better facility becomes available.
That was discussed in the thread I linked to last time:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/26/661
and there are good reasons not to add those prints.
Will
