From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29DF1D52E; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:39:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arndb.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=arndb.de header.i=@arndb.de header.b="S8cBOPo0"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="qYLe51Oe" Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 564E43200A5E; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:39:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap51 ([10.202.2.101]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 03 Jan 2024 12:39:19 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=arndb.de; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1704303557; x=1704389957; bh=AmXiwz8LUM E91m64esk/QdAtIjEuLeDqTmwpf180Hkw=; b=S8cBOPo0YUOXhtfvbQl/dKlMmp spGNpNrq0X7DR1Z/N2hHrSSWtspS3rLy+YRxi9aSMRpk8ZPLpp7QD4TyNdsbYYF2 xyHxbFVOjHXs1qwFkxfeN81PJMY8b/c/UeyQT2++d22Ogz5AJFDbDK6m0yhSLTi7 Z3DKTDpP7gYaqZ43iO+3GqL/P12TWhnzS4giFFA9GZZaUHSihyo8Qq6JR3f23Yu2 XpwGpv4MWaDuHi+M1OTMD7dNisZmF6tYhY886XPY+QqtOCqbC+nPprV6OehWLU/r IwIyN+cHfo60HZOL/DRVslfA+ymQFslUDwYDnadol3xnU19WtbGNNdk5HZtA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1704303557; x=1704389957; bh=AmXiwz8LUME91m64esk/QdAtIjEu LeDqTmwpf180Hkw=; b=qYLe51OejE4O8CPjq4w8PpeRfhYj45FIxb0C37utI4XQ pmVsKLnU95WUUBarcRSTOYBC1C/1nXBlflucmE/1v6/BE2d8cQ4u2NNHLWv/4eUf tNIokEP/dyylTacQw4rfGTJI5WNfF68Te8kAsP97qZqWeEInoDwkZQZd+pOg4hl7 ULCCh0XDsPRhLilaB8BFwRFpDhyK1G7smD9hfMadk9tS33Ma/FyZ5NQbWhJH7o5T 6SCRAmRXtzgYAglvgzZfp20aEfMx8ng1b24bHHBcjTQqjQ0/4wf+nczqDK/633cf 2fNEOZYpcvPELfsi6Ogv/VB1QyMaYyi896ADrF6Cbg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrvdeghedguddtgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvvefutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdet rhhnugcuuegvrhhgmhgrnhhnfdcuoegrrhhnugesrghrnhgusgdruggvqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeffheeugeetiefhgeethfejgfdtuefggeejleehjeeutefhfeeggefhkedt keetffenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe grrhhnugesrghrnhgusgdruggv X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0C337B6008D; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:39:16 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-1364-ga51d5fd3b7-fm-20231219.001-ga51d5fd3 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <5a6d441a-54bb-42ed-9ab7-3a7f24c8a14b@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20240103173018.GD5954@willie-the-truck> References: <20240103100324.05f47bb8@canb.auug.org.au> <20240103173018.GD5954@willie-the-truck> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 18:38:55 +0100 From: "Arnd Bergmann" To: "Will Deacon" , "Stephen Rothwell" Cc: "Olof Johansson" , ARM , "Anshuman Khandual" , "Linus Walleij" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , linux-next Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm-soc tree with the arm-perf tree Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Jan 3, 2024, at 18:30, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:03:24AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> static int armv6_map_event(struct perf_event *event) >> { >> return armpmu_map_event(event, &armv6_perf_map, > > Thanks, this looks fine to me (just remove all the 11MPCore code). > > Arnd -- anything you need me to do in the perf tree here other than mention > this in my pull request? No, I think we're good here as far as I can tell. Arnd