From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 19:07:04 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] arm: enable support for software perf events
In-Reply-To: <20100202184831.GH4305@wear.picochip.com>
References: <1263471256-3739-1-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1263471256-3739-2-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1263471256-3739-3-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1263471256-3739-4-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<1263471256-3739-5-git-send-email-jamie.iles@picochip.com>
	<20100202174000.GB29701@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20100202184831.GH4305@wear.picochip.com>
Message-ID: <20100202190704.GC29701@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 06:48:31PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 05:40:00PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:14:15PM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > > The perf events subsystem allows counting of both hardware and
> > > software events. This patch implements the bare minimum for software
> > > performance events.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@picochip.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/Kconfig                  |    2 ++
> > >  arch/arm/include/asm/perf_event.h |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  arch/arm/mm/fault.c               |    7 +++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/perf_event.h
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > index 293a879..72646b2 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ config ARM
> > >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
> > >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
> > >  	select GENERIC_ATOMIC64
> > 
> > This conflicts - this select is only if !CPU_32v6K in my kernel.
> > 
> > What's the implication?  Does this perf stuff require these atomic64
> > stuff (in which case, those symbols should only be selected if
> > GENERIC_ATOMIC64 is also selected.)
> > 
> > Please sort this out.
> As Will mentioned, the correct case should be 'GENERIC_ATOMIC64 if
> (!CPU_32v6K)' due to my patches being off a tree without the native
> atomic64's. I can rebase onto next if that's easier.

Much prefer having them rebased onto 7558b1f, which is in -next if you
can manage that.

The better solution (which I think I'll do just before the merge window)
is to re-order the 'select' statements to be alphabetic, which should
help separate some of these conflicts.