On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 06:43:52PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:03:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > This patch documents the devicetree binding in use for ARM SPE. > > > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com> > > Cc: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..d6540b491af4 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/spe-pmu.txt > > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > > +* ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension (SPE) Performance Monitor Units > > (PMU) > > + > > +ARMv8.2 introduces the optional Statistical Profiling Extension for > > collecting > > +performance sample data using an in-memory trace buffer. > > + > > +** SPE Required properties: > > + > > +- compatible : should be one of: > > + "arm,arm-spe-pmu-v1" > > The second "arm" here doesn't seem to add much. Should that be "armv8.2" > instead?
I don't think armv8.2 is particularly helpful, because that effectively ties together the SPE version and the architecture version, which I don't think is strictly required. The reason I added it was so that you could describe a partner implementation as something like: acme,arm-spe-pmu-v1 and know that it was acme's implementation of an ARM architectural feature. If I drop the second "arm", I was worried that it might conflict with other namespaces (e.g. acme's signal-processing-element's power-management-unit). What do you reckon? Will