On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:08:53AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 07:07 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > The perf-events backend for OProfile that Will Deacon wrote in > > 8c1fc96f6fd1f361428ba805103af0d0eee65179 ("ARM: 6072/1: oprofile: use > > perf-events framework as backend") is of use to more architectures > > than just ARM. Move the code into drivers/oprofile/ so that SH can use > > it instead of the nearly identical copy of its OProfile code. > > > [...] > > > > Note that I haven't been able to test these patches on an ARM board to > > see if I've caused any regressions. If anyone else could do that I'd > > appreciate it. Though, I have been able to compile this version of the > > series. > > > I've tested this patch series on a multicore Cortex-A9 board. If I > revert patch 5/6 (ARM: Make oprofile depend on CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS) > then everything seems to work fine. Otherwise, testing without > HW_PERF_EVENTS doesn't fall back to timer mode. > > So, with the exception of the patch above: > > Tested-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> Hi Will, thanks for testing! Ah yeah, making oprofile rely on CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS is too strict. I hadn't noticed that armpmu_get_pmu_id() is wrapped in CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENTS and had intended op->cpu_type to be NULL and so we'd fallback to the timer mode. This patch needs to be dropped entirely (though another patch should conditionally include oprofile_perf.o based on CONFIG_HW_PERF_EVENT like I had in my original series). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html