lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Fwd: Re: [2.6.24 patch] restore ARMv6 OProfile support
    On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:45:26AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
    > I never got a response on my message, but I have just receieved:
    >
    > | Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:05:00 +0100
    > | From: Joerg Wagner <wagner@it.neclab.eu>
    > | To: ARM Linux Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk>
    > | Subject: 2.6.24-rc7 : oprofile on MPCore broken
    > |
    > | Hello,
    > |
    > | just tried to use oprofile on 2.6.24-rc7.
    > | It does not detect the right processor
    > | (/dev/oprofile/cpu_type contains "timer").
    > |
    > | As I don't know exactly, how the string
    > | "arm/mpcore" from arch/arm/oprofile/op_model_mpcore.c
    > | gets feeded into that file, maybe someone else can help ?
    >
    > So people are hitting the resulting mess created by 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9.
    > Can we please fix this regression one way or another please?
    >
    > I don't particularly like stuffing the options into some random place
    > in the architectures Kconfig file when they should stay along side the
    > instrumentation configuration entries.

    Below is the patch I already sent on 28 Dec 2007 that stuffs it into
    Kconfig.instrumentation.

    Technically it shouldn't make any difference whether this patch or
    Mathieu's patch that stuffs it into arch/arm/Kconfig gets applied, but
    one of them should be applied for 2.6.24 (plus either mine or Mathieu's
    fix for the blackfin HARDWARE_PM support broken by the same commit).

    I found the bugs in Mathieu's commit 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9,
    I wrote patches that restore the status quo, Cc'ed all people even
    remotely related to this issue, and I opened the Bugzilla bugs required
    for getting them on the regression lists. Mathieu wants the regressions
    he introduced fixed different from what my patches did and that's not a
    problem for me (his patches are also OK).

    What went wrong that his regression fixes did not land in Linus' tree?

    cu
    Adrian


    <-- snip -->


    This patch restores the ARMv6 OProfile support that was killed by
    commit 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9.

    Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <adrian.bunk@movial.fi>

    ---

    kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
    1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

    7fc221ef169610b5eac98e2ddd641811c0d53e4a
    diff --git a/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation b/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation
    index 468f47a..4453187 100644
    --- a/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation
    +++ b/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation
    @@ -29,2 +29,17 @@ config OPROFILE

    +config OPROFILE_ARMV6
    + bool
    + depends on OPROFILE && ARM && CPU_V6 && !SMP
    + default y
    + select OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE
    +
    +config OPROFILE_MPCORE
    + bool
    + depends on OPROFILE && ARM && CPU_V6 && SMP
    + default y
    + select OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE
    +
    +config OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE
    + bool
    +
    config KPROBES

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-15 13:33    [W:0.026 / U:0.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site