On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:47:35AM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:41:47AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

The issue stems from the fact that we have to route the PMU interrupts to
the correct CPU manually (I think only MSM routes them as PPIs, which is
clearly the correct thing to do). To do this, we expect the IRQ resources to
be laid out in CPU order. In hindsight, maybe naming the resources might
have been a good idea, but them we'd still have to generate the names using
CPU numbers when iterating through the platform device.

There isn't yet a way to do naming of resources with DT, and although I 
think there was a proposal for doing named register resources I don't 
think this has been accepted and there wasn't anything for IRQ 
resources...

That's good news - means I have an excuse other than laziness for not
implementing this for perf :)

Will