[PATCH] pxa168 and pxa930 build fix - plat-pxa/pmu.c dependent on ARCH_PXA for IRQ_PMU

[Wan ZongShun]

2010/6/14 Eric Miao <eric.y.miao at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>>> We have different ways to handle this:
>>>
>>> 1. register different platform devices with different IRQs for pxa[23]xx, pxa168
>>> 2. modify the IRQ at run-time to a correct one
>>> 3. move the platform device registration back into arch/arm/mach-pxa/<soc>.c
>>> (or arch/arm/mach-pxa/common.c) and arch/arm/mach-mmp/<soc>.c
>>
>> For the RealView boards, we take approach number (1). This is largely for two
>> reasons:
>>
>> 1.) The PMU IRQ doesn't have a consistent naming scheme
>> 2.) SMP RealView platforms need to have an extra resource in the
>>    platform_device for each CPU.
>>
>> However, looking at the PXA168 description and the perf-events code,
>> I don't think we support the PMU anyway [see init_hw_perf_events in
>> arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c]. If the PMU present is accessible in the
>> same way as one of the other supported PMUs, then it would be easy to
>> add it to the perf-events code. Otherwise, a new PMU driver will need
>> to be written if people want to use it.
>>
>> Without access to a TRM, I can't tell whether or not supporting the PMU
>> is trivial, so I guess we go with option (3) for the time being.
>>
>>> We need to figure out if there are some other differences between these
>>> PMUs (or in the future), which will make solution 3) stand out.
>>
>> In the future I reckon PMU devices will be memory-mapped and live inside
>> components other than the CPU. PMU registration will then be highly SoC-specific.
>> Perf events doesn't yet support any of this, so it depends how future-proof you
>> want to be!
>>
>
> For a quick solution of the build error, I decided to pick Jonathan's
> patch first. At least PMU is not tested and ever used on pxa168/910/mmp2
> series at this moment. I'll work on a proper fix later, possibly a patch
> merged through -devel branch instead of -fix.
>

Good idea. thanks!

>>
>>> >>  arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile |    3 ++-
>>> >>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>> >>
>>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>>> >> index 6187edf..a17cc0c 100644
>>> >> --- a/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>>> >> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-pxa/Makefile
>>> >> @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
>>> >>  # Makefile for code common across different PXA processor families
>>> >>  #
>>> >>
>>> >> -obj-y  := dma.o pmu.o
>>> >> +obj-y  := dma.o
>>> >>
>>> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PXA)         += pmu.o
>>> >>  obj-$(CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO)     += gpio.o
>>> >>  obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx)           += mfp.o
>>> >>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MMP)         += mfp.o
>>> >> --
>>> >> 1.6.4.4
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
*linux-arm-kernel mailing list
mail addr:linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
you can subscribe by:
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

* linux-arm-NUC900 mailing list
mail addr:NUC900 at googlegroups.com
main web: https://groups.google.com/group/NUC900
you can subscribe it by sending me mail:
mcuos.com at gmail.com