* [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU
@ 2010-06-07 17:49 Jonathan Cameron
2010-06-08 6:57 ` Wan ZongShun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Cameron @ 2010-06-07 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
---
Found this build issue whilst browsing kautobuild logs.
There may well be a better fix but until someone with
a board in ARCH_MMP can test it, lets just not build
pmu.c. Can't find equivalent fix in Eric's tree so I
think this is still a live problem.
arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
index 6187edf..a17cc0c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
@@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
# Makefile for code common across different PXA processor families
#
-obj-y := dma.o pmu.o
+obj-y := dma.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PXA) += pmu.o
obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO) += gpio.o
obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) += mfp.o
obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MMP) += mfp.o
--
1.6.4.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU
2010-06-07 17:49 [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU Jonathan Cameron
@ 2010-06-08 6:57 ` Wan ZongShun
2010-06-08 7:55 ` Eric Miao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wan ZongShun @ 2010-06-08 6:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
2010/6/8 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>:
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
> ---
> ?Found this build issue whilst browsing kautobuild logs.
> ?There may well be a better fix but until someone with
> ?a board in ARCH_MMP can test it, lets just not build
> ?pmu.c. ?Can't find equivalent fix in Eric's tree so I
> ?think this is still a live problem.
>
When building pxa168 platform, IRQ_PMU cannot be find and error occurs.
Eric, before delete it from MMP, should not we check whether the
performance counter function
is necessary for MMP or not?
If necessary , we should fix this issue by define IRQ_PMU to
IRQ_PXA168_PMU, or we can delete it.
> ?arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile | ? ?3 ++-
> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
> index 6187edf..a17cc0c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
> ?# Makefile for code common across different PXA processor families
> ?#
>
> -obj-y ?:= dma.o pmu.o
> +obj-y ?:= dma.o
>
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PXA) ? ? ? ? += pmu.o
> ?obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO) ? ? += gpio.o
> ?obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) ? ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
> ?obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MMP) ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
> --
> 1.6.4.4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
--
*linux-arm-kernel mailing list
mail addr:linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
you can subscribe by:
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
* linux-arm-NUC900 mailing list
mail addr:NUC900 at googlegroups.com
main web: https://groups.google.com/group/NUC900
you can subscribe it by sending me mail:
mcuos.com at gmail.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU
2010-06-08 6:57 ` Wan ZongShun
@ 2010-06-08 7:55 ` Eric Miao
2010-06-08 8:52 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <3623778261485640027@unknownmsgid>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2010-06-08 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/6/8 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>:
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
>> ---
>> ?Found this build issue whilst browsing kautobuild logs.
>> ?There may well be a better fix but until someone with
>> ?a board in ARCH_MMP can test it, lets just not build
>> ?pmu.c. ?Can't find equivalent fix in Eric's tree so I
>> ?think this is still a live problem.
>>
>
> When building pxa168 platform, IRQ_PMU cannot be find and error occurs.
> Eric, before delete it from MMP, should not we check whether the
> performance counter function
> is necessary for MMP or not?
>
> If necessary , we should fix this issue by define IRQ_PMU to
> IRQ_PXA168_PMU, or we can delete it.
>
We have different ways to handle this:
1. register different platform devices with different IRQs for pxa[23]xx, pxa168
2. modify the IRQ at run-time to a correct one
3. move the platform device registration back into arch/arm/mach-pxa/<soc>.c
(or arch/arm/mach-pxa/common.c) and arch/arm/mach-mmp/<soc>.c
We need to figure out if there are some other differences between these
PMUs (or in the future), which will make solution 3) stand out.
>> ?arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile | ? ?3 ++-
>> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>> index 6187edf..a17cc0c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
>> ?# Makefile for code common across different PXA processor families
>> ?#
>>
>> -obj-y ?:= dma.o pmu.o
>> +obj-y ?:= dma.o
>>
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PXA) ? ? ? ? += pmu.o
>> ?obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO) ? ? += gpio.o
>> ?obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) ? ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
>> ?obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MMP) ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
>> --
>> 1.6.4.4
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> mail addr:linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> you can subscribe by:
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
> * linux-arm-NUC900 mailing list
> mail addr:NUC900 at googlegroups.com
> main web: https://groups.google.com/group/NUC900
> you can subscribe it by sending me mail:
> mcuos.com at gmail.com
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU
2010-06-08 7:55 ` Eric Miao
@ 2010-06-08 8:52 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <3623778261485640027@unknownmsgid>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2010-06-08 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Hi Eric,
> We have different ways to handle this:
>
> 1. register different platform devices with different IRQs for pxa[23]xx, pxa168
> 2. modify the IRQ at run-time to a correct one
> 3. move the platform device registration back into arch/arm/mach-pxa/<soc>.c
> (or arch/arm/mach-pxa/common.c) and arch/arm/mach-mmp/<soc>.c
For the RealView boards, we take approach number (1). This is largely for two
reasons:
1.) The PMU IRQ doesn't have a consistent naming scheme
2.) SMP RealView platforms need to have an extra resource in the
platform_device for each CPU.
However, looking at the PXA168 description and the perf-events code,
I don't think we support the PMU anyway [see init_hw_perf_events in
arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c]. If the PMU present is accessible in the
same way as one of the other supported PMUs, then it would be easy to
add it to the perf-events code. Otherwise, a new PMU driver will need
to be written if people want to use it.
Without access to a TRM, I can't tell whether or not supporting the PMU
is trivial, so I guess we go with option (3) for the time being.
> We need to figure out if there are some other differences between these
> PMUs (or in the future), which will make solution 3) stand out.
In the future I reckon PMU devices will be memory-mapped and live inside
components other than the CPU. PMU registration will then be highly SoC-specific.
Perf events doesn't yet support any of this, so it depends how future-proof you
want to be!
Will
> >> arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile | 3 ++-
> >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
> >> index 6187edf..a17cc0c 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
> >> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
> >> # Makefile for code common across different PXA processor families
> >> #
> >>
> >> -obj-y := dma.o pmu.o
> >> +obj-y := dma.o
> >>
> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PXA) += pmu.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO) += gpio.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) += mfp.o
> >> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MMP) += mfp.o
> >> --
> >> 1.6.4.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU
[not found] ` <3623778261485640027@unknownmsgid>
@ 2010-06-13 16:42 ` Eric Miao
2010-06-13 16:51 ` Wan ZongShun
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2010-06-13 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>> We have different ways to handle this:
>>
>> 1. register different platform devices with different IRQs for pxa[23]xx, pxa168
>> 2. modify the IRQ at run-time to a correct one
>> 3. move the platform device registration back into arch/arm/mach-pxa/<soc>.c
>> (or arch/arm/mach-pxa/common.c) and arch/arm/mach-mmp/<soc>.c
>
> For the RealView boards, we take approach number (1). This is largely for two
> reasons:
>
> 1.) The PMU IRQ doesn't have a consistent naming scheme
> 2.) SMP RealView platforms need to have an extra resource in the
> ? ?platform_device for each CPU.
>
> However, looking at the PXA168 description and the perf-events code,
> I don't think we support the PMU anyway [see init_hw_perf_events in
> arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c]. If the PMU present is accessible in the
> same way as one of the other supported PMUs, then it would be easy to
> add it to the perf-events code. Otherwise, a new PMU driver will need
> to be written if people want to use it.
>
> Without access to a TRM, I can't tell whether or not supporting the PMU
> is trivial, so I guess we go with option (3) for the time being.
>
>> We need to figure out if there are some other differences between these
>> PMUs (or in the future), which will make solution 3) stand out.
>
> In the future I reckon PMU devices will be memory-mapped and live inside
> components other than the CPU. PMU registration will then be highly SoC-specific.
> Perf events doesn't yet support any of this, so it depends how future-proof you
> want to be!
>
For a quick solution of the build error, I decided to pick Jonathan's
patch first. At least PMU is not tested and ever used on pxa168/910/mmp2
series at this moment. I'll work on a proper fix later, possibly a patch
merged through -devel branch instead of -fix.
>
>> >> ?arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile | ? ?3 ++-
>> >> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>> >> index 6187edf..a17cc0c 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>> >> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
>> >> ?# Makefile for code common across different PXA processor families
>> >> ?#
>> >>
>> >> -obj-y ?:= dma.o pmu.o
>> >> +obj-y ?:= dma.o
>> >>
>> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PXA) ? ? ? ? += pmu.o
>> >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO) ? ? += gpio.o
>> >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) ? ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
>> >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MMP) ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
>> >> --
>> >> 1.6.4.4
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU
2010-06-13 16:42 ` Eric Miao
@ 2010-06-13 16:51 ` Wan ZongShun
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Wan ZongShun @ 2010-06-13 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
2010/6/14 Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>>> We have different ways to handle this:
>>>
>>> 1. register different platform devices with different IRQs for pxa[23]xx, pxa168
>>> 2. modify the IRQ at run-time to a correct one
>>> 3. move the platform device registration back into arch/arm/mach-pxa/<soc>.c
>>> (or arch/arm/mach-pxa/common.c) and arch/arm/mach-mmp/<soc>.c
>>
>> For the RealView boards, we take approach number (1). This is largely for two
>> reasons:
>>
>> 1.) The PMU IRQ doesn't have a consistent naming scheme
>> 2.) SMP RealView platforms need to have an extra resource in the
>> ? ?platform_device for each CPU.
>>
>> However, looking at the PXA168 description and the perf-events code,
>> I don't think we support the PMU anyway [see init_hw_perf_events in
>> arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c]. If the PMU present is accessible in the
>> same way as one of the other supported PMUs, then it would be easy to
>> add it to the perf-events code. Otherwise, a new PMU driver will need
>> to be written if people want to use it.
>>
>> Without access to a TRM, I can't tell whether or not supporting the PMU
>> is trivial, so I guess we go with option (3) for the time being.
>>
>>> We need to figure out if there are some other differences between these
>>> PMUs (or in the future), which will make solution 3) stand out.
>>
>> In the future I reckon PMU devices will be memory-mapped and live inside
>> components other than the CPU. PMU registration will then be highly SoC-specific.
>> Perf events doesn't yet support any of this, so it depends how future-proof you
>> want to be!
>>
>
> For a quick solution of the build error, I decided to pick Jonathan's
> patch first. At least PMU is not tested and ever used on pxa168/910/mmp2
> series at this moment. I'll work on a proper fix later, possibly a patch
> merged through -devel branch instead of -fix.
>
Good idea. thanks!
>>
>>> >> ?arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile | ? ?3 ++-
>>> >> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>> >>
>>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>>> >> index 6187edf..a17cc0c 100644
>>> >> --- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>>> >> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>>> >> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
>>> >> ?# Makefile for code common across different PXA processor families
>>> >> ?#
>>> >>
>>> >> -obj-y ?:= dma.o pmu.o
>>> >> +obj-y ?:= dma.o
>>> >>
>>> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PXA) ? ? ? ? += pmu.o
>>> >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO) ? ? += gpio.o
>>> >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) ? ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
>>> >> ?obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MMP) ? ? ? ? += mfp.o
>>> >> --
>>> >> 1.6.4.4
>>
>>
>>
>
--
*linux-arm-kernel mailing list
mail addr:linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
you can subscribe by:
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
* linux-arm-NUC900 mailing list
mail addr:NUC900 at googlegroups.com
main web: https://groups.google.com/group/NUC900
you can subscribe it by sending me mail:
mcuos.com at gmail.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-06-13 16:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-06-07 17:49 [PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU Jonathan Cameron
2010-06-08 6:57 ` Wan ZongShun
2010-06-08 7:55 ` Eric Miao
2010-06-08 8:52 ` Will Deacon
[not found] ` <3623778261485640027@unknownmsgid>
2010-06-13 16:42 ` Eric Miao
2010-06-13 16:51 ` Wan ZongShun
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).