[PATCH 2/3] drm/panfrost: Expose HW counters to userspace

[Alyssa Rosenzweig]

> memcmp() does not account for the case where 2 jobs contain exactly the
> same perfmons but in a different order. This being said, it's rather
> unlikely to happen, so maybe we can accept the perf penalty for that
> case.

If you say so!

> Yes, all numbers above 0xfff are bifrost GPUs. I'll add a macro.

Thank you.

> Will copy the errata.

I was planning to include annotations for the whole file, but that's low
prio.

> Actually, that one is from me, hence the 'not sure why' part :).

Alright...

> Others are using the same "if data passed is smaller than expected
> size, unassigned fields are zeroed". That allows us to extend a struct
> without breaking the ABI as long as zero is a valid value and does not
> change the behavior compared to when the field was not present.
> 
> This is the case here: perfmon_handle_count = 0 means no perfmon
> attached to the job, so the driver is acting like it previously was.
> 
> No need to get that part merged in the initial patch series IMO.

+1

> Thanks a lot for your reviews. That was pretty damn fast!

THanks a lot for your code! \ o /