Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:37:01 -0500 | From | Mathieu Desnoyers <> | Subject | Re: Fwd: Re: [2.6.24 patch] restore ARMv6 OProfile support |
| |
* Linus Torvalds (torvalds@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > > > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Russell King wrote: > > > > 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. > > Well, I have to say that I don't particularly like obviously > architecture-specific stuff in an obviously non-architecture file.. > > I'd almost prefer to revert the thing that caused the problem, because > with Adrian's patch, I think the end result may *work*, but it's uglier > than what we started out with. > > However, I think the *cleanest* solution right now may be something like > the appended. Totally untested, of course. It basically just copies the > generic kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation file into the arm directory, makes > arm use its own instead of the generic one, and removes the dependencies > on ARM in there (including all of the KPROBES entry that apparently isn't > an issue on ARM anyway). It then adds back the ARM-specific ones. > > This follows the sacred rules of good code: > > - generic code is either generic or not. If it's not generic, don't claim > it is. > > - don't *force* people to use generic code if it doesn't suit them. Make > it available for the cases it makes sense for, but don't shoe-horn it > into cases where it doesn't work well. > > So it allows the sharing of the common case and *many* architectures end > up using the generic Kconfig file, but hey, if it doesn't make sense for > ARM, it doesn't make sense for ARM. It's that simple. > > But as mentioned, it's totally untested and I don't have (or really want > to have) a cross-compiling environment. And I don't care *that* much. I > just want something we can all live with. > > So does something like this work for people? >
Hi,
Well, it goes along the lines of the patch I suggested as a reply to Adrian, with these differences :
- I still source the kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation file. - I put back the missing OPROFILE options directly in arch/arm/Kconfig
Then end result is the same as your patch, but without the code duplication.
Here is the patch :
Fix ARMv6 oprofile support
This patch restores the ARMv6 OProfile support that was killed by commit 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9.
It puts the config options in arch/arm/Kconfig.
Thanks to Adrian Bunk for finding this bug and providing an initial patch.
Changelog : Use def_bool.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> CC: Adrian Bunk <adrian.bunk@movial.fi> CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> CC: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk CC: phil.el@wanadoo.fr CC: oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6-lttng/arch/arm/Kconfig =================================================================== --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/arch/arm/Kconfig 2007-12-29 16:58:32.000000000 -0500 +++ linux-2.6-lttng/arch/arm/Kconfig 2007-12-29 16:59:25.000000000 -0500 @@ -130,6 +130,23 @@ config FIQ config ARCH_MTD_XIP bool +if OPROFILE + +config OPROFILE_ARMV6 + def_bool y + depends on CPU_V6 && !SMP + select OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE + +config OPROFILE_MPCORE + def_bool y + depends on CPU_V6 && SMP + select OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE + +config OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE + bool + +endif + config VECTORS_BASE hex default 0xffff0000 if MMU || CPU_HIGH_VECTOR
- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
| |