Hi Kevin, Can you please check this patch? From the previous discussions I understood it was OK. This one has been submitted to and l-o and l-a-k MLs. How will this one be merged in? Thanks, Jean On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jean Pihet [mailto:jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 2:14 PM >> To: Santosh Shilimkar >> Cc: Kevin Hilman; Thomas Renninger; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jean Pihet-XID >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: add OMAP support for the new power events >> >> Hi Santosh, >> > > [...] > >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach- >> >> omap2/pm34xx.c >> >> index 2f864e4..d1cc3f4 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c >> >> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ >> >> #include <linux/delay.h> >> >> #include <linux/slab.h> >> >> #include <linux/console.h> >> >> +#include <trace/events/power.h> >> >> >> >> #include <plat/sram.h> >> >> #include "clockdomain.h" >> >> @@ -519,8 +520,14 @@ static void omap3_pm_idle(void) >> >> if (omap_irq_pending() || need_resched()) >> >> goto out; >> >> >> >> + trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, 1, smp_processor_id()); >> >> + trace_cpu_idle(1, smp_processor_id()); >> >> + >> > >> > This default idle code won't be used when you enable the >> > CONFIG_CPUIDLE. That case the cpuidle34xx.c idle code gets >> > registered. >> That is correct. OMAP has a default idle handler (omap3_pm_idle) and >> a >> cpuidle handler (omap3_enter_idle in >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c). >> >> > Shouldn't you patch that code instead? This is more or less >> > dead code and it is just like default idle code when idle >> > drivers isn't registered. >> The cpuidle framework already is instrumented in a generic way. This >> code adds the instrumentation to the default idle handler so that >> all >> cases are covered. BTW the patch description gives that information. >> >> If there is dead code then it is not only the code from this patch >> but >> all the code for the default idle handler. >> > I read your change log. It says. > >>> The trace points are for: >>> - default idle handler. Since the cpuidle framework is >>> instrumented in the generic way there is no need to >>> add trace points in the OMAP specific cpuidle handler; > Now code in cpuilde34xx.c is also OMAP specific and hence the > confusion at least for me. > Regarding dead code, I meant existing code of default handler. > > Thanks for clarification. > > Regards, > Santosh > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
