On 7/13/20 12:25 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 05:53:12PM +0530, Kajol Jain wrote:
>> Added the "PerChip" field in enum so that perf knows they are
>> per chip events.
>>
>> Added the "PerCore" field in enum so that perf knows they are
>> per core events and add these fields to pmu_event structure.
>>
>> Similar to the way we had "PerPkg field
>> to specify perpkg events.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kajol Jain <kj...@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c | 8 +++++++-
>> tools/perf/pmu-events/pmu-events.h | 4 +++-
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c
>> b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c
>> index b2f59f0af63d..1f65047db000 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/jevents.c
>> @@ -54,13 +54,19 @@ int verbose;
>> char *prog;
>>
>> enum aggr_mode_class {
>> - PerPkg = 1
>> + PerChip = 0,
>
> is there a reason for the values? just wonder if it's wise to have PerChip ==
> 0,
> and why you would not continue with forward when PerPkg is 1
Hi Jiri,
Yes, there is no reason for having particular values, It just added to get
which parameter
we are referring. I can sure continue it after Perpkg.
Thanks,
Kajol Jain
>
> jirka
>
>> + PerPkg = 1,
>> + PerCore = 2
>> };
>>
>
> SNIP
>
