From: Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>
Organization: Blackfin uClinux org
To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [2.6.24 patch] restore blackfin HARDWARE_PM support
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:28:50 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@kernel.org>,
       "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       "Randy Dunlap" <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>, bryan.wu@analog.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20071228185643.GB4738@stusta.de> <200712290114.46694.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> <20071229062326.GA16853@Krystal>
In-Reply-To: <20071229062326.GA16853@Krystal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200712291428.50359.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 997
Lines: 24

On Sat 29 Dec 2007 01:23, Mathieu Desnoyers pondered:
> Ok, and do we really need to make HARDWARE_PM a tristate ? I see that
> part of it must be compiled into the kernel in core .S files. Does it
> really make sense for it to be a module ?

I don't think so.

> Also, op_model_bf533.c sits in the arch/blackfin/oprofile directory,
> (built if HARDWARE_PM is y or m) but depends on PROFILING, not OPROFILE.
> Is HARDWARE_PM useful at all without OPROFILE ?

There was an out of tree patch that was floating around that gave people a sys 
or proc interface to the hardware registers - since oprofile doesn't work 
that well on a bash-less system.

I don't think I will have time to look at the patch over the weekend, but will 
do after Jan 1.

-Robin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/