On 13.09.10 07:18:50, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:08:53AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > 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). Matt, yes, the patch set looks good so far. With the exception of some minor comments I made and patch #5 dropped, we should be fine. Please update the patches. Thanks, -Robert -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center -- 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
