From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F724C43441 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450092145D for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:46:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=wdc.com header.i=@wdc.com header.b="fJ1uiewg" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 450092145D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=wdc.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730688AbeKTELR (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:11:17 -0500 Received: from esa3.hgst.iphmx.com ([216.71.153.141]:55865 "EHLO esa3.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730035AbeKTELQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:11:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wdc.com; i=@wdc.com; q=dns/txt; s=dkim.wdc.com; t=1542649607; x=1574185607; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zS1A7Tv4Czs1FEpfMs3Ntne1PZcf7XNMjDhuanEGfQs=; b=fJ1uiewgVmUb91fW+3Sartg12wSf2wZtzSMI8OP8UbIXTOVgNyHAjCRp pRY6hT8rZGY1N2XG9QaSkyOv3h2zBnJLBsTls9jb483t94nH4GiiQXb3X GHFa74ThuufJNfXHdb6GGFWWSOHo3fiG+wCMhSs8wkZM2Rif2Hqw+IDGR +eb4PwXLOKmD99gnGRUIEs+JowXww/gNDbg8L7Srl+ORDcs1vrfgihSOw nF2Vt4XsZJzjcmCTKctdjHnMFO4nxKf4CPgVutiPbFkClLCKyCUVSLjRp LQKBEEKkpl/bVmvG6I9yOGhYvDDBKx2pbI/97a5t6YPrCaZB4cArPPOSt Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,253,1539619200"; d="scan'208";a="99423757" Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.15]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2018 01:46:47 +0800 Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com ([10.248.3.37]) by uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2018 09:30:02 -0800 Received: from cnf003109.ad.shared (HELO [10.86.54.248]) ([10.86.54.248]) by uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2018 09:46:45 -0800 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V To: Jeffrey Hugo , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Damien Le Moal , "juri.lelli@arm.com" , "anup@brainfault.org" , "palmer@sifive.com" , "jeremy.linton@arm.com" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "sudeep.holla@arm.com" , "mick@ics.forth.gr" , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" References: <1541728209-3224-1-git-send-email-atish.patra@wdc.com> <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org> From: Atish Patra Message-ID: <40f24d50-eb1b-cef6-81e2-1bc9930bcbf5@wdc.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:46:44 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/15/18 10:31 AM, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > On 11/8/2018 6:50 PM, Atish Patra wrote: >> The cpu-map DT entry in ARM64 can describe the CPU topology in >> much better way compared to other existing approaches. RISC-V can >> easily adopt this binding to represent it's own CPU topology. >> Thus, both cpu-map DT binding and topology parsing code can be >> moved to a common location so that RISC-V or any other >> architecture can leverage that. >> >> The relevant discussion regarding unifying cpu topology can be >> found in [1]. >> >> arch_topology seems to be a perfect place to move the common >> code. I have not introduced any functional changes in the moved >> to code. The only downside in this approach is that the capacity >> code will be executed for RISC-V as well. But, it will exit >> immediately after not able to find the appropriate DT node. If >> the overhead is considered too much, we can always compile out >> capacity related functions under a different config for the >> architectures that do not support them. >> >> The patches have been tested for RISC-V and compile tested for >> ARM64. >> >> The socket changes[2] can be merged on top of this series or vice >> versa. >> >> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19 >> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/7/918 >> >> Atish Patra (3): >> dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding. >> cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code. >> RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot. >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 475 ------------------- >> .../devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt | 526 +++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 23 +- >> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 305 +----------- >> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 + >> arch/riscv/kernel/smpboot.c | 6 +- >> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 303 ++++++++++++ >> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 23 + >> include/linux/topology.h | 1 + >> 9 files changed, 864 insertions(+), 799 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpu/cpu-topology.txt >> > > I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since > this series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. > However, I can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. > Different patches cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I > attempted. > > What are these intended to apply to? > I had rebased them on top of 4.20-rc1. > Also, you might want to run them through checkpatch next time. There > are several whitespace errors. > Sorry I missed couple of them. Thanks for trying to test the patches. I will send a next version as Rob suggested. Please test that. Regards, Atish