On 01/15, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> index 789d846a9184..e76750980b38 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -295,9 +297,15 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
>
> static irqreturn_t armpmu_dispatch_irq(int irq, void *dev)
> {
> - struct arm_pmu *armpmu = (struct arm_pmu *) dev;
> - struct platform_device *plat_device = armpmu->plat_device;
> - struct arm_pmu_platdata *plat = dev_get_platdata(&plat_device->dev);
> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu;
> + struct platform_device *plat_device;
> + struct arm_pmu_platdata *plat;
> +
> + if (irq_is_percpu(irq))
> + dev = *(struct arm_pmu_cpu **)dev;
Oh. I just realized that struct arm_pmu_cpu doesn't even exist. This
still compiles though because we're dealing with a void pointer.
Perhaps its better to just do
dev = *(void **)dev;
here. Can you fix that up when applying? Otherwise I'll do it on
the next send if there are more comments.
> + armpmu = dev;
> + plat_device = armpmu->plat_device;
> + plat = dev_get_platdata(&plat_device->dev);
>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
