From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Bryan Wu <bryan.wu@analog.com>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <adrian.bunk@movial.fi>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
phil.el@wanadoo.fr, oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [2.6.24 patch] restore ARMv6 OProfile support
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:49:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080115174948.GB19306@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0801150811250.2806@woody.linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:24:34AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Russell King wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Well, I have to say that I don't particularly like obviously
> architecture-specific stuff in an obviously non-architecture file..
>
> I'd almost prefer to revert the thing that caused the problem, because
> with Adrian's patch, I think the end result may *work*, but it's uglier
> than what we started out with.
>
> However, I think the *cleanest* solution right now may be something like
> the appended. Totally untested, of course. It basically just copies the
> generic kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation file into the arm directory, makes
> arm use its own instead of the generic one, and removes the dependencies
> on ARM in there (including all of the KPROBES entry that apparently isn't
> an issue on ARM anyway). It then adds back the ARM-specific ones.
>
> This follows the sacred rules of good code:
>
> - generic code is either generic or not. If it's not generic, don't claim
> it is.
>
> - don't *force* people to use generic code if it doesn't suit them. Make
> it available for the cases it makes sense for, but don't shoe-horn it
> into cases where it doesn't work well.
>
> So it allows the sharing of the common case and *many* architectures end
> up using the generic Kconfig file, but hey, if it doesn't make sense for
> ARM, it doesn't make sense for ARM. It's that simple.
>
> But as mentioned, it's totally untested and I don't have (or really want
> to have) a cross-compiling environment. And I don't care *that* much. I
> just want something we can all live with.
>
> So does something like this work for people?
BTW, your patch may fix ARM, but the original commit broke blackfin as
well - it removed the Kconfig entry for HARDWARE_PM, which is still used:
$ grep HARDWARE_PM arch/blackfin/ -r
arch/blackfin/mach-common/interrupt.S:#ifdef CONFIG_HARDWARE_PM
arch/blackfin/mach-common/interrupt.S:#ifdef CONFIG_HARDWARE_PM
arch/blackfin/mach-common/irqpanic.c:#ifdef CONFIG_HARDWARE_PM
arch/blackfin/oprofile/Makefile:oprofile-$(CONFIG_HARDWARE_PM) += op_model_bf533.o
arch/blackfin/oprofile/common.c:#ifdef CONFIG_HARDWARE_PM
So blackfin also needs fixing. I don't know if blackfin people are
aware of this.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-15 17:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-28 19:58 Fwd: Re: [2.6.24 patch] restore ARMv6 OProfile support Russell King
2008-01-15 10:45 ` Russell King
2008-01-15 12:02 ` Adrian Bunk
2008-01-15 14:05 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-15 16:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-15 16:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-01-15 17:02 ` Russell King
2008-01-15 17:37 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-15 18:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-15 19:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-15 19:16 ` Sam Ravnborg
2008-01-15 19:50 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2008-01-15 20:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-01-15 17:49 ` Russell King [this message]
2008-01-15 18:06 ` Adrian Bunk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080115174948.GB19306@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=adrian.bunk@movial.fi \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bryan.wu@analog.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=phil.el@wanadoo.fr \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox