From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B61DDEE9 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:48:34 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala To: Scott Wood In-Reply-To: <20080318170542.GA4099@loki.buserror.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Make 83xx perfmon support selectable Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:48:12 -0500 References: <1204934343-5235-1-git-send-email-afleming@freescale.com> <20080318170542.GA4099@loki.buserror.net> Cc: Paul Mackerras , Phillips Kim , linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mar 18, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 05:59:03PM -0600, Andy Fleming wrote: >> Not all e300 cores support the performance monitors, and the ones >> that don't will be confused by the mf/mtpmr instructions. This >> allows the support to be optional, so the 8349 can turn it off >> while the 8379 can turn it on. Sadly, those aren't config options, >> so it will be left to the defconfigs and the users to make that >> determination. > > So does this mean we can't do multiplatform of something with > perfmon and > something without perfmon? Seems like this should come from the > device > tree, or PVR, or some other runtime check. It possible if your binutils supports generating the instructions. I believe Kim was going to look at doing a patch to use a #define MFPMR(x)/#define MTPMR() so we don't have to worry about toolchain versions. - k