* [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
[parent not found: <3623778261485640027@unknownmsgid>]
* [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).