MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Will Deacon]

Hi Russell,

Commit ee3c454b `arm: msm: add oprofile pmu support' in your devel
branch adds an IRQ to the static list in kernel/pmu.c. Patch 6064/1 in
the patch system replaces this old functionality with runtime registration
using a platform device, so this commit prevents that patch applying.
The OProfile patches in the system also depend on the runtime registration
patch, so they will become blocked too.

I can update the patch in the patch system so it applies cleanly, but
the mach-msm bsp will need updating to register the IRQ using the new
mechanism. Daniel: would you like me to submit a patch to do this, or
would you rather do it [since I'm unfamiliar with the mach]?

Cheers,

Will

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 18:02 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Commit ee3c454b `arm: msm: add oprofile pmu support' in your devel
> branch adds an IRQ to the static list in kernel/pmu.c. Patch 6064/1 in
> the patch system replaces this old functionality with runtime registration
> using a platform device, so this commit prevents that patch applying.
> The OProfile patches in the system also depend on the runtime registration
> patch, so they will become blocked too.

Oh, sorry about that. I didn't realize a change like that was pending.
When are you planning to merge these changes?

> I can update the patch in the patch system so it applies cleanly, but
> the mach-msm bsp will need updating to register the IRQ using the new
> mechanism. Daniel: would you like me to submit a patch to do this, or
> would you rather do it [since I'm unfamiliar with the mach]?

Either, but your more motivated as it's blocking your progress ..

Daniel

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 18:02 +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > Commit ee3c454b `arm: msm: add oprofile pmu support' in your devel
> > branch adds an IRQ to the static list in kernel/pmu.c. Patch 6064/1 in
> > the patch system replaces this old functionality with runtime registration
> > using a platform device, so this commit prevents that patch applying.
> > The OProfile patches in the system also depend on the runtime registration
> > patch, so they will become blocked too.
> 
> Oh, sorry about that. I didn't realize a change like that was pending.
> When are you planning to merge these changes?

Very very soon; the old way oprofile stuff is being supported will be
going away.

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Will Deacon]

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the quick reply.

> Oh, sorry about that. I didn't realize a change like that was pending.
> When are you planning to merge these changes?

I've put them in the patch system recently and Russell has been merging
them since then.
 
> > I can update the patch in the patch system so it applies cleanly, but
> > the mach-msm bsp will need updating to register the IRQ using the new
> > mechanism. Daniel: would you like me to submit a patch to do this, or
> > would you rather do it [since I'm unfamiliar with the mach]?
> 
> Either, but your more motivated as it's blocking your progress ..

I just posted a patch to the list. I've also superseded the outstanding PMU
registration patch on the patch system with 6113/1 so that it applies cleanly
to Russell's devel branch.

Will

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 07:04:16PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> I just posted a patch to the list. I've also superseded the outstanding PMU
> registration patch on the patch system with 6113/1 so that it applies cleanly
> to Russell's devel branch.

This just makes the situation worse.

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 06:02:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> I can update the patch in the patch system so it applies cleanly, but
> the mach-msm bsp will need updating to register the IRQ using the new
> mechanism. Daniel: would you like me to submit a patch to do this, or
> would you rather do it [since I'm unfamiliar with the mach]?

This is going to be horrible...  I maintain a completely separate branch
for pulling git trees into from the (multiple) branches which have the
patches in.

Fixing this will tie all the branches together, which I do not want to
do at the moment.

My intention is as follows:

1. Freeze the multiple branches with patches next week.
2. Apply your patches on top of the merged-set of those branches.
3. Apply the other pending patches which are dependent on these branches.

Now, at that point, the devel-stable branch won't merge cleanly back
into devel because of this MSM problem, and the problem is how do we
solve that.

It's not trivial, because you can't just add the platform device - it's
dependent on your patch in my tree adding the enum.

Maybe I'll just keep the devel-stable branch entirely separate until
the devel stuff has been merged, and then MSM can be sorted at some
point later.  This unfortunately means that devel-stable drops out of
linux-next.  It also means that linux-next is at risk of missing the
merge window... again.

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:15 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Maybe I'll just keep the devel-stable branch entirely separate until
> the devel stuff has been merged, and then MSM can be sorted at some
> point later.  This unfortunately means that devel-stable drops out of
> linux-next.  It also means that linux-next is at risk of missing the
> merge window... again.

Would it matter if you just did a revert on the MSM pmu patch ?

Daniel

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:24:07AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:15 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Maybe I'll just keep the devel-stable branch entirely separate until
> > the devel stuff has been merged, and then MSM can be sorted at some
> > point later.  This unfortunately means that devel-stable drops out of
> > linux-next.  It also means that linux-next is at risk of missing the
> > merge window... again.
> 
> Would it matter if you just did a revert on the MSM pmu patch ?

No - and it might be better if you did it.  I could do it on my
devel-stable branch but then that'll cause you problems if you
apply a patch from Will for this (but I think you'll have problems
with that whichever way.)

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:26 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:24:07AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:15 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Maybe I'll just keep the devel-stable branch entirely separate until
> > > the devel stuff has been merged, and then MSM can be sorted at some
> > > point later.  This unfortunately means that devel-stable drops out of
> > > linux-next.  It also means that linux-next is at risk of missing the
> > > merge window... again.
> > 
> > Would it matter if you just did a revert on the MSM pmu patch ?
> 
> No - and it might be better if you did it.  I could do it on my
> devel-stable branch but then that'll cause you problems if you
> apply a patch from Will for this (but I think you'll have problems
> with that whichever way.)

I'll add a revert on my for-russell branch, then you can pull that. Is
that what your thinking ?

Daniel

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:59:27AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:26 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:24:07AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:15 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > Maybe I'll just keep the devel-stable branch entirely separate until
> > > > the devel stuff has been merged, and then MSM can be sorted at some
> > > > point later.  This unfortunately means that devel-stable drops out of
> > > > linux-next.  It also means that linux-next is at risk of missing the
> > > > merge window... again.
> > > 
> > > Would it matter if you just did a revert on the MSM pmu patch ?
> > 
> > No - and it might be better if you did it.  I could do it on my
> > devel-stable branch but then that'll cause you problems if you
> > apply a patch from Will for this (but I think you'll have problems
> > with that whichever way.)
> 
> I'll add a revert on my for-russell branch, then you can pull that. Is
> that what your thinking ?

Yup.

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Daniel Walker]

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 20:01 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:59:27AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:26 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:24:07AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:15 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > Maybe I'll just keep the devel-stable branch entirely separate until
> > > > > the devel stuff has been merged, and then MSM can be sorted at some
> > > > > point later.  This unfortunately means that devel-stable drops out of
> > > > > linux-next.  It also means that linux-next is at risk of missing the
> > > > > merge window... again.
> > > > 
> > > > Would it matter if you just did a revert on the MSM pmu patch ?
> > > 
> > > No - and it might be better if you did it.  I could do it on my
> > > devel-stable branch but then that'll cause you problems if you
> > > apply a patch from Will for this (but I think you'll have problems
> > > with that whichever way.)
> > 
> > I'll add a revert on my for-russell branch, then you can pull that. Is
> > that what your thinking ?
> 
> Yup.

Ok, I updated my for-russell branch with a revert , let me know if
that's satisfactory ..

Daniel

MSM PMU Support in Commit ee3c454b

[Will Deacon]

Hi Russell,

On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 19:15 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 
> My intention is as follows:
> 
> 1. Freeze the multiple branches with patches next week.
> 2. Apply your patches on top of the merged-set of those branches.
> 3. Apply the other pending patches which are dependent on these
> branches.
> 
> Now, at that point, the devel-stable branch won't merge cleanly back
> into devel because of this MSM problem, and the problem is how do we
> solve that.
> 
Thanks for explaining this, I was getting a bit confused by the various
branches and just trying to avoid any conflicts. Now that the MSM patch
has been reverted [thanks Daniel] the original PMU registration patch
should apply. I've updated the patch system accordingly [discarding
6113/1 and moving 6064/1 from superseded to incoming].

Once this lot is in, we can think about MSM support then.

Thanks,

Will