From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 15:07:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] ARM perf: Fix the pmu node name in warning message
In-Reply-To: <554386C2.6020609@arm.com>
References: <1429797033-3787-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <1429797033-3787-2-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <554386C2.6020609@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20150501140755.GD1561@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 02:59:30PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 23/04/15 14:50, Will Deacon wrote:
> > With commit 9fd85eb502a7 ("ARM: pmu: add support for interrupt-affinity
> > property"), we print a warning when we find a PMU SPI with a missing
> > missing interrupt-affinity property in a pmu node. Unfortunately, we
> > pass the wrong (NULL) device node to of_node_full_name, resulting in
> > unhelpful messages such as:
> >
> >   hw perfevents: Failed to parse <no-node>/interrupt-affinity[0]
> >
> > This patch fixes the name to that of the pmu node.
> >
> > Fixes: 9fd85eb502a7 (ARM: pmu: add support for interrupt-affinity property)
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c | 2 +-
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> > index becf7ad6eddc..213919ba326f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> > @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static int of_pmu_irq_cfg(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   				      i);
> >   		if (!dn) {
> >   			pr_warn("Failed to parse %s/interrupt-affinity[%d]\n",
> > -				of_node_full_name(dn), i);
> > +				of_node_full_name(pdev->dev.of_node), i);
> >   			break;
> 
> With old DT we will see this message and one might think perf is broken.
> But since the code still assumes SPIs are listed in order of *logical*
> CPU number and continues to work, does it make sense to update the
> warning accordingly ?

Dunno; it doesn't work on Juno, for example. I've also already sent the
arm64 pull, so it would need to be a separate patch if you wanted to
print something different and we'd need a way to detect the cases where
the routing is actually wrong.

Will