On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:25PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > The breakpoint support ability in an arch is not related > to the fact perf events is built or not. HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > only shows an ability so this dependency makes no sense > anymore. Archs that select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT already > ensure that perf event is built. > > Remove that dependency. > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> > Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> > Cc: Prasad <pra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Paul Mundt <let...@linux-sh.org> > --- > arch/Kconfig | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig > index f78c2be..ce4be89 100644 > --- a/arch/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/Kconfig > @@ -149,7 +149,6 @@ config HAVE_DEFAULT_NO_SPIN_MUTEXES > > config HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > bool > - depends on PERF_EVENTS > > config HAVE_MIXED_BREAKPOINTS_REGS > bool > --
Just a thought you might want to consider... The need to keep the ability (HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT) and the user-choice to enable hardware breakpoints (through HW_BREAKPOINT) in separate config options isn't very clear to me (and is a bit confusing with very similar names). Why not make HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT selectable by the user (which in turn would turn on PERF_EVENTS) for a given architecture? Thanks, K.Prasad _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
