| Message ID | 20190726112737.19309-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm_pmu: Mark expected switch fall-through | expand |
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.roxell@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 >
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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.roxell@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") Does seem about right, but I'd like Lorenzo's ack on this. Will
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > 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.roxell@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") Yes that's correct, apologies. Probably we did not hit it because CPU PM notifier entry failures are a pretty rare event; regardless: Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> I can send the updated fix, just let me know. Thanks, Lorenzo > 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 > >
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:18:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > 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.roxell@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") > > Yes that's correct, apologies. Probably we did not hit it because CPU PM > notifier entry failures are a pretty rare event; regardless: > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > > I can send the updated fix, just let me know. I'm not sure what Will wants, but assuming you do so: Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Thanks, Mark.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:24:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:18:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > 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.roxell@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") > > > > Yes that's correct, apologies. Probably we did not hit it because CPU PM > > notifier entry failures are a pretty rare event; regardless: > > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > > > > I can send the updated fix, just let me know. > > I'm not sure what Will wants, but assuming you do so: > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> I gave up waiting, so it's already queued here: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next/fixes&id=0d7fd70f26039bd4b33444ca47f0e69ce3ae0354 Will
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:24:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:18:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > 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.roxell@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") > > > > > > Yes that's correct, apologies. Probably we did not hit it because CPU PM > > > notifier entry failures are a pretty rare event; regardless: > > > > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > > > > > > I can send the updated fix, just let me know. > > > > I'm not sure what Will wants, but assuming you do so: > > > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > I gave up waiting, so it's already queued here: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next/fixes&id=0d7fd70f26039bd4b33444ca47f0e69ce3ae0354 Great; I'll mark this thread as done, then. :) Mark.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 13:28, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:24:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:18:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > 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.roxell@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") > > > > > > Yes that's correct, apologies. Probably we did not hit it because CPU PM > > > notifier entry failures are a pretty rare event; regardless: > > > > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > > > > > > I can send the updated fix, just let me know. > > > > I'm not sure what Will wants, but assuming you do so: > > > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > I gave up waiting I'm sorry for letting you wait. >, so it's already queued here: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next/fixes&id=0d7fd70f26039bd4b33444ca47f0e69ce3ae0354 Thanks for fixing it. Cheers, Anders
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:30:27PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 13:28, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:24:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:18:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > 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.roxell@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") > > > > > > > > Yes that's correct, apologies. Probably we did not hit it because CPU PM > > > > notifier entry failures are a pretty rare event; regardless: > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > > > > > > > > I can send the updated fix, just let me know. > > > > > > I'm not sure what Will wants, but assuming you do so: > > > > > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > > > I gave up waiting > > I'm sorry for letting you wait. No, not at all. It's just that everybody was piling in with patches for these issues and I suspected you were busy dealing with responses. Rather than wait, I figured the best bet was just to get this fixed. Are you going to respin the SMMUv3 change per Robin's feedback? Will
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 14:43, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:30:27PM +0200, Anders Roxell wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 13:28, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:24:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:18:25PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:29:56PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > 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.roxell@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") > > > > > > > > > > Yes that's correct, apologies. Probably we did not hit it because CPU PM > > > > > notifier entry failures are a pretty rare event; regardless: > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> > > > > > > > > > > I can send the updated fix, just let me know. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what Will wants, but assuming you do so: > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > > > > > I gave up waiting > > > > I'm sorry for letting you wait. > > No, not at all. It's just that everybody was piling in with patches for > these issues and I suspected you were busy dealing with responses. Rather > than wait, I figured the best bet was just to get this fixed. Thanks. > > Are you going to respin the SMMUv3 change per Robin's feedback? Yes, just sent it. Cheers, Anders
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;
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.roxell@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. drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)