Re: Fwd: Re: [2.6.24 patch] restore ARMv6 OProfile support

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

I never got a response on my message, but I have just receieved:

| Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:05:00 +0100
| From: Joerg Wagner <wagner@it.neclab.eu>
| To: ARM Linux Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk>
| Subject: 2.6.24-rc7 : oprofile on MPCore broken
| 
| Hello,
| 
| just tried to use oprofile on 2.6.24-rc7.
| It does not detect the right processor
|  (/dev/oprofile/cpu_type contains "timer").
| 
| As I don't know exactly, how the string
| "arm/mpcore" from arch/arm/oprofile/op_model_mpcore.c
| gets feeded into that file, maybe someone else can help ?

So people are hitting the resulting mess created by 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9.
Can we please fix this regression one way or another please?

I don't particularly like stuffing the options into some random place
in the architectures Kconfig file when they should stay along side the
instrumentation configuration entries.

On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 07:58:41PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> Sorry, hit the wrong key.  'T' and 'Y' are too close together.  (mutt)
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> -----
> 
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:57:24 +0000
> From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
> To: Adrian Bunk <adrian.bunk@movial.fi>
> Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
> 	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>, phil.el@wanadoo.fr,
> 	oprofile-list@lists.sf.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [2.6.24 patch] restore ARMv6 OProfile support
> 
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:56:36PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch restores the ARMv6 OProfile support that was killed by
> > commit 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <adrian.bunk@movial.fi>
> 
> Given where we are in the release cycle, I think this "cleanup" patch
> should be reverted.  Once the issues with it are resolved (why was it
> never even CC'd to the arch maintainers for review?) then it can go
> into mainline.
> 
> Note that it also looks like (from the commitdiff) that the above
> mentioned commit also removes:
> 
> CONFIG_HARDWARE_PM (blackfin)
> CONFIG_OPROFILE_CELL (powerpc)
> 
> So they're probably subtly broken as well.
> 
> Linus, what do you think?  Should 09cadedbdc01f1a4bea1f427d4fb4642eaa19da9
> be reverted?
> 
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> >  kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation |   19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> > 
> > 7fc221ef169610b5eac98e2ddd641811c0d53e4a 
> > diff --git a/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation b/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation
> > index 468f47a..4453187 100644
> > --- a/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation
> > +++ b/kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation
> > @@ -29,2 +29,17 @@ config OPROFILE
> > 
> > +config OPROFILE_ARMV6
> > +	bool
> > +	depends on OPROFILE && ARM && CPU_V6 && !SMP
> > +	default y
> > +	select OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE
> > +
> > +config OPROFILE_MPCORE
> > +	bool
> > +	depends on OPROFILE && ARM && CPU_V6 && SMP
> > +	default y
> > +	select OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE
> > +
> > +config OPROFILE_ARM11_CORE
> > +	bool
> > +
> >  config KPROBES
> 
> -- 
> Russell King
>  Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
>  maintainer of:
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: