perf parse-events: Remove hard coded legacy hardware and cache parsing

perf parse-events: Remove hard coded legacy hardware and cache parsing

Now that legacy hardware and cache events are in json, having the
lexer match the specific event is no longer necessary and generic PMU
parsing can take place. Because of this remove the specific term
parsing, event adding, and passing of alternate_hw_config which was
now always PERF_COUNT_HW_MAX.

This mirrors a similar change for software events in commit 6e9fa4131abb
("perf parse-events: Remove non-json software events").

With no hard coded legacy hardware or cache events the wild card, case
insensitivity, etc. is consistent for events. This does, however, mean
events like cycles will wild card against all PMUs. A change does the
same was originally posted and merged from:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240416061533.921723-10-irogers@google.com
and reverted by Linus in commit 4f1b067359ac ("Revert "perf
parse-events: Prefer sysfs/JSON hardware events over legacy"") due to
his dislike for the cycles behavior on ARM. Earlier patches in this
series make perf record event opening failures non-fatal and hide the
cycles event's failure to open on ARM in perf record, so it is
expected the behavior will now be transparent in perf record. perf
stat with a cycles event will wildcard open the event on all PMUs. As
cycles is a "default event", the perf stat behavior for default events
was updated to only open them on core/software PMUs.

The change to support legacy events with PMUs was done to clean up
Intel's hybrid PMU implementation.  Having sysfs/json events with
increased priority to legacy was requested by Mark Rutland
<mark.rutland@arm.com> to fix Apple-M PMU issues wrt broken legacy
events on that PMU. It was requested that RISC-V be able to add events
to the perf tool json so the PMU driver didn't need to map legacy
events to config encodings:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240217005738.3744121-1-atishp@rivosinc.com/

A previous series of patches decreasing legacy hardware event
priorities was posted in:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250416045117.876775-1-irogers@google.com/
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> mentioned that hardware and
software events can be implemented similarly:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aIJmJns2lopxf3EK@google.com/

Tested-by: Thomas Richter <tmricht@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Tested-by: James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>