[PATCH] ppc32: make perfmon.o CONFIG_E500 specific

Subject says it all, there is no need to link perfmon.o on 
sub-architectures other than CONFIG_E500.

diff --git a/arch/ppc/kernel/Makefile b/arch/ppc/kernel/Makefile
--- a/arch/ppc/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/arch/ppc/kernel/Makefile

@@ -15,8 +15,9 @@ extra-y				+= vmlinux.lds
 obj-y				:= entry.o traps.o irq.o idle.o time.o misc.o \
 					process.o signal.o ptrace.o align.o \
 					semaphore.o syscalls.o setup.o \
-					cputable.o ppc_htab.o perfmon.o
+					cputable.o ppc_htab.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_6xx)		+= l2cr.o cpu_setup_6xx.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_E500)		+= perfmon.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_SOFTWARE_SUSPEND)	+= swsusp.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_POWER4)		+= cpu_setup_power4.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_MODULES)		+= module.o ppc_ksyms.o

diff --git a/arch/ppc/kernel/traps.c b/arch/ppc/kernel/traps.c
--- a/arch/ppc/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/ppc/kernel/traps.c

@@ -849,10 +849,12 @@ void AltivecAssistException(struct pt_re
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_ALTIVEC */
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_E500
 void PerformanceMonitorException(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
 	perf_irq(regs);
 }
+#endif
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_FSL_BOOKE
 void CacheLockingException(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long address,

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 17:27 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

Subject says it all, there is no need to link perfmon.o on 
sub-architectures other than CONFIG_E500.

Hrm... Nobody has an implementation for 74xx ?

Ben.

I've got some untested code for 74xx (probably only 7450 for now),  
but it's several rungs down my priority list right now.  : 
(  Hopefully I will have time for it soon...

Andy

On Aug 23, 2005, at 17:39, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 17:27 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

quoted

Subject says it all, there is no need to link perfmon.o on
sub-architectures other than CONFIG_E500.

Hrm... Nobody has an implementation for 74xx ?

Ben.


_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 05:50:15PM -0500, Andy Fleming wrote:

I've got some untested code for 74xx (probably only 7450 for now),  
but it's several rungs down my priority list right now.  : 
(  Hopefully I will have time for it soon...

OK - you can then add the proper change for inclusion inside
the #ifdef ?

Please apply the patch (or some variant of it).