RE: [RESEND PATCH v3 1/2] perf: coresight_pmu: Add support for ARM CoreSight PMU driver
From: Besar Wicaksono
Date: Thu Jul 14 2022 - 00:58:43 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 3:13 AM
> To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@xxxxxxxxxx>; Besar Wicaksono
> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>; catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx;
> will@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx;
> thanu.rangarajan@xxxxxxx; Michael.Williams@xxxxxxx; Thierry Reding
> <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx>; Vikram
> Sethi <vsethi@xxxxxxxxxx>; mike.leach@xxxxxxxxxx; leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 1/2] perf: coresight_pmu: Add support for
> ARM CoreSight PMU driver
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> On 2022-07-12 17:36, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >>> If we have decied to call this arm_system_pmu, (which I am perfectly
> >>> happy with), could we please stick to that name for functions that we
> >>> export ?
> >>> e.g,
> >> Just want to confirm, is it just the public functions or do we need to
> >> all that has "coresight" naming ? Including the static functions, structs,
> > I think all references to "coresight" should be changed to
> > including filenames. That way there is no doubt this IP block is not
> > related, and does not interoperate, with the any of the "coresight" IP
> > already supported in the kernel.
> > I have looked at the documentation in the cover letter and I agree
> > with an earlier comment from Sudeep that this IP has very little to do with
> > of the other CoreSight IP blocks found in the CoreSight framework.
> Using the
> > "coresight" naming convention in this driver would be _extremely_
> > especially when it comes to exported functions.
> But conversely, how is it not confusing to make up completely different
> names for things than what they're actually called? The CoreSight
> Performance Monitoring Unit is a part of the Arm CoreSight architecture,
> it says it right there on page 1. What if I instinctively associate the
> name Mathieu with someone more familiar to me, so to avoid confusion I'd
> prefer to call you Steve? Is that OK?
What is the naming convention for modules under drivers/perf ?
In my observation, the names there correspond to the part monitored by
the PMU. The confusion on using "coresight_pmu" naming could be that
people may think the PMU monitors coresight system, i.e the trace system under hwtracing.
However, the driver in this patch is for a new PMU standard that monitors uncore
parts. Uncore was considered as terminology from Intel, so "system" was picked instead.
Please see this thread for reference:
> As it happens, Steve, I do actually agree with you that "coresight_" is
> a bad prefix here, but only for the reason that it's too general. TBH I
> think that's true of the existing Linux subsystem too, but that damage
> is already done, and I'd concur that there's little value in trying to
> unpick that now, despite the clear existence of products like CoreSight
> DAP and CoreSight ELA which don't have all that much to do with program
> trace either.
> However, hindsight and inertia are hardly good reasons to double down on
> poor decisions, so if I was going to vote for anything here it would be
> "cspmu_", which is about as
> obviously-related-to-the-thing-it-actually-is as we can get while also
> being pleasantly concise.
> [ And no, this isn't bikeshedding. Naming things right is *important* ]
I agree having the correct name is important, especially at this early stage.
A direction of what the naming should describe would be very helpful here.
> > Thanks,
> > Steve
> > . drivers/hwtracing/coresight/
> > . https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ihi0091/latest