Hi Al, On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:43:19PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > On 10/13/2017 08:27 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > I certainly agree that exposing the information that we have is useful, > > as I have stated several times. I'm not NAKing exposing this information > > elsewhere. > > > > If you want a consistent cross-architecture interface for this > > information, then you need to propose a new one. That was we can > > actually solve the underlying issues, for all architectures, without > > breaking ABI. > > > > I would be *very* interested in such an interface, and would be more > > than happy to help. > > I'm playing with some patches that do very similar things in sysfs, vs > proc. Is that better :)?
Exposing data under sysfs is certainly better, yes. :) > Obviously, you'll have to see the patches to > properly answer that, but what I'm playing with at present is placing > this info in new entries in /sys/devices/cpu and/or /sys/devices/system, > and generating some of the content based on what's already in header files > (e.g., in cputype.h). My opposition to MIDR -> string mapping applies regardless of location... > The idea of course is to keep this new info from touching any existing > info so we don't break compatibility -- does that feel like a better > direction, at least? ... but otherwise this sounds good to me! Thanks, Mark.
