[1/2] build failure for E500 CPUs w/ CONFIG_OPROFLE=y

Andy Fleming afleming at freescale.com
Sat Oct 28 06:03:51 EST 2006

On Oct 26, 2006, at 15:32, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:

> Hello.
> Vitaly Wool wrote:
>> Hello Kumar,
>>> This makes sense to me since we are just increasing kernel code size
>>> for code we would never use for an FSL_BOOKE part if we do it the
>>> other way.  I dont think its that much more messy with the ifdef's.
>> Okay, if you're fine with this patch, is it possible that you  
>> include it
>> into your tree?
>>> If you want to do the other cleanup as well I've got no issue with
>>> that, but we really should NOT build in support for 7450 into a
>>> FSL_BOOKE kernel when reasonably avoidable.
>> That's fine with me.
>> As of the cleanups, well... looks to me some more patches will follow
>> soon, kinda bugfixing ones rather than cleanups first :)
>    The most funny/stupd thing is that the patch existed since May  
> but it never
> went in:
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=5531

Yeah, I guess it got lost.  After looking at both patches, I see the  
different approaches.  I think I'd vote for the older patch, since it  
also solves some SMP issues that will crop up when the dual-core 8572  
comes out.  In fact, it's similar to this patch: http:// 

Oi.  Ok, I'm going to update and resend that patch in just a second  
(Ok, this took longer than I thought, due to the lwsync patch I sent  
out being required).  I like Vitaly's patch, but the one I sent  
cleans up some early design mistakes I made in the original ppc32  
oprofile code.

>> Thanks,
>>   Vitaly
> WBR, Sergei
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list