On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 04:08:47AM +0000, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > I'd rather see it in the generic code if at all possible. Maybe we could add
> > a flags field to perf_pmu_register?
>
> I can look into adding the check in generic code.
>
> In the meantime, would you consider a patch like this that disables
> the IRQ check and lets ARM devices missing an IRQ (such as the rasp-pi)
> still have access to the counters?
In the absence of a core change, I think I'd rather have something like your
second patch, but without the extra no_overflow_irq field (you can check the
platform device, as I mentioned previously).
Cheers,
Will
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> index d85055c..ff1a752 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event_cpu.c
> @@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ static int cpu_pmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu,
> irq_handler_t handler)
>
> irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
> if (irqs < 1) {
> - pr_err("no irqs for PMUs defined\n");
> - return -ENODEV;
> + printk_once("no irqs for PMUs defined, sampling events not
> supported\n");
> + return 0;
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
