On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:27:37PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote:
> When fall-through warnings was enabled by default the following warning
> was starting to show up:
>
> ../drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c: In function ‘cpu_pm_pmu_notify’:
> ../drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c:726:3: warning: this statement may fall
> through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
> cpu_pm_pmu_setup(armpmu, cmd);
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c:727:2: note: here
> case CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED:
> ^~~~
>
> Rework so that the compiler doesn't warn about fall-through.
>
> Fixes: d93512ef0f0e ("Makefile: Globally enable fall-through warning")
> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.rox...@linaro.org>
> ---
>
> I'm not convinced that this is the correct patch to fix this issue.
> However, I can't see why we do 'armpmu->start(armpmu);' only in 'case
> CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED' and why we not call function cpu_pm_pmu_setup()
> there also, since in cpu_pm_pmu_setup() has a case prepared for
> CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED.
I agree, think that should be:
case CPU_PM_EXIT:
case CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED:
cpu_pm_pmu_setup(armpmu, cmd);
armpmu->start(armpmu);
break;
... so that we re-start the events before we start the PMU.
That would be a fix for commit:
da4e4f18afe0f372 ("drivers/perf: arm_pmu: implement CPU_PM notifier")
Thanks,
Mark.
>
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index 2d06b8095a19..465a15705bab 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -724,6 +724,7 @@ static int cpu_pm_pmu_notify(struct notifier_block *b,
> unsigned long cmd,
> break;
> case CPU_PM_EXIT:
> cpu_pm_pmu_setup(armpmu, cmd);
> + /* Fall through */
> case CPU_PM_ENTER_FAILED:
> armpmu->start(armpmu);
> break;
> --
> 2.20.1
>
