[PATCH 4/9] ARM: pmu: remove arm_pmu_type enumeration

[jon-hunter@ti.com (Jon Hunter)]

On 08/20/2012 04:01 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 03:08:51PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Will, Tony,
> 
> Hi Jon [adding Arnd],
> 
>> On 08/10/2012 12:36 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>>> index c00c689..02b9478 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c
>>> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>>>  #include <mach/irqs.h>
>>>  #include <asm/mach-types.h>
>>>  #include <asm/mach/map.h>
>>> -#include <asm/pmu.h>
>>>  
>>>  #include "iomap.h"
>>>  #include <plat/board.h>
>>> @@ -448,7 +447,7 @@ static struct resource omap3_pmu_resource = {
>>>  
>>>  static struct platform_device omap_pmu_device = {
>>>  	.name		= "arm-pmu",
>>> -	.id		= ARM_PMU_DEVICE_CPU,
>>> +	.id		= -1,
>>>  	.num_resources	= 1,
>>>  };
>>
>> I know that I have already ack-ed the change and it is fine with me,
>> however, I see a potential merge conflict here with my patch [1]
>> (assuming that these all go into v3.7) where I am moving the above
>> structure.
> 
> Are your patches queued anywhere other than your tree? If not, then I could
> ask Arnd to pull the perf changes into their own branch in arm-soc and you
> could rebase onto that.

No just my tree for now, so that would work for me.

>> For testing I have rebased my series on top of this series and it is
>> working well so far on OMAP4460.
> 
> Great, thanks. Can I add your tested-by to the patches please?

Yes, you can add my tested-by. I will also test on omap3 and omap4430 too.

Cheers
Jon