From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 11:21:43 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL] ARM perf updates for 4.1 In-Reply-To: <20150413092812.GC432@lukather> References: <20150327172246.GN1562@arm.com> <20150413091011.GA1582@arm.com> <20150413092812.GC432@lukather> Message-ID: <20150413102031.GA2869@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:28:12AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:10:12AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 04:05:40PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > Will Deacon (1): > > > > ARM: pmu: add support for interrupt-affinity property > > > > > > As most DTSes lack this property, we now get scary warnings: > > > > > > CPU PMU: Failed to parse /interrupt-affinity[0] > > > > That's a harmless warning (i.e. perf will `work' as before), but I'd like to > > print something to say that we didn't find the property. > > Shouldn't we have a warning only if that property makes some kind of > sense? > > I mean, I agree on the fact that we want this property if this is an > SPI, but if it is a PPI, it doesn't make any sense to have this > property, and this is very well documented in the binding > documentation. Yes, that's a good point; for PPIs, the warning is nonsensical. I'll cook a fix. Cheers, Will