linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-perf tree with the arm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 10:15:19 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-perf tree with the arm tree

On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 02:17:08AM +0100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Will,

Hi Stephen,

> Today's linux-next merge of the arm-perf tree got a conflict in
> arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c between commit 324bbc0804ac ("ARM:
> make it easier to check the CPU part number correctly") from the arm
> tree and commit 6f73e8ababdd ("arm: perf: clean up PMU names") from the
> arm-perf tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).

Looks good, thanks.

Russell -- could you put your CPU part number patches on a stable branch
please? That way I can send you a pull request based on that (or you can fix
the conflicts up yourself, just let me know what you prefer).

Will

> diff --cc arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> index c02c2e8c877d,c63dc4201a7f..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> @@@ -254,35 -259,38 +257,39 @@@ static int probe_current_pmu(struct arm
>   
>   	pr_info("probing PMU on CPU %d\n", cpu);
>   
>  +	switch (read_cpuid_part()) {
>   	/* ARM Ltd CPUs. */
>  -	if (implementor == ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM) {
>  -		switch (part_number) {
>  -		case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM1136:
>  -			ret = armv6_1136_pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  -		case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM1156:
>  -			ret = armv6_1156_pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  -		case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM1176:
>  -			ret = armv6_1176_pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  -		case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM11MPCORE:
>  -			ret = armv6mpcore_pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  -		case ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A8:
>  -			ret = armv7_a8_pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  -		case ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9:
>  -			ret = armv7_a9_pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  -		}
>  -	/* Intel CPUs [xscale]. */
>  -	} else if (implementor == ARM_CPU_IMP_INTEL) {
>  -		switch (xscale_cpu_arch_version()) {
>  -		case ARM_CPU_XSCALE_ARCH_V1:
>  -			ret = xscale1pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  -		case ARM_CPU_XSCALE_ARCH_V2:
>  -			ret = xscale2pmu_init(pmu);
>  -			break;
>  +	case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM1136:
> ++		ret = armv6_1136_pmu_init(pmu);
> ++		break;
>  +	case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM1156:
> ++		ret = armv6_1156_pmu_init(pmu);
> ++		break;
>  +	case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM1176:
> - 		ret = armv6pmu_init(pmu);
> ++		ret = armv6_1176_pmu_init(pmu);
>  +		break;
>  +	case ARM_CPU_PART_ARM11MPCORE:
>  +		ret = armv6mpcore_pmu_init(pmu);
>  +		break;
>  +	case ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A8:
>  +		ret = armv7_a8_pmu_init(pmu);
>  +		break;
>  +	case ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9:
>  +		ret = armv7_a9_pmu_init(pmu);
>  +		break;
>  +
>  +	default:
>  +		if (read_cpuid_implementor() == ARM_CPU_IMP_INTEL) {
>  +			switch (xscale_cpu_arch_version()) {
>  +			case ARM_CPU_XSCALE_ARCH_V1:
>  +				ret = xscale1pmu_init(pmu);
>  +				break;
>  +			case ARM_CPU_XSCALE_ARCH_V2:
>  +				ret = xscale2pmu_init(pmu);
>  +				break;
>  +			}
>   		}
>  +		break;
>   	}
>   
>   	put_cpu();


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/