Re: [RFC 2/4] arch-topology: add a default implementation of store_cpu_topology()

[<Conor.Dooley@microchip.com>]

On 08/07/2022 09:24, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 11:04:35PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
>>
>> RISC-V & arm64 both use an almost identical method of filling in
>> default vales for arch topology. Create a weakly defined default
>> implementation with the intent of migrating both archs to use it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/base/arch_topology.c  | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   include/linux/arch_topology.h |  1 +
>>   2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> index 441e14ac33a4..07e84c6ac5c2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> @@ -765,6 +765,25 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
>>   	}
>>   }
>>   
>> +void __weak store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)

Does using __weak here make sense to you?

> 
> I prefer to have this as default implementation. So just get the risc-v
> one pushed to upstream first(for v5.20) and get all the backports if required.
> Next cycle(i.e. v5.21), you can move both RISC-V and arm64.
> 

Yeah, that was my intention. I meant to label patch 1/4 as "PATCH"
and (2,3,4)/4 as RFC but forgot. I talked with Palmer about doing
the risc-v impl. and then migrate both on IRC & he seemed happy with
it.

If you're okay with patch 1/4, I'll resubmit it as a standalone v2.

Thanks,
Conor.