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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,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 238D0C43441 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 01:18:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8FC2080C for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 01:18:46 +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="G8oNVOdL" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DC8FC2080C 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 S1730702AbeKTLpO (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 06:45:14 -0500 Received: from esa1.hgst.iphmx.com ([68.232.141.245]:20327 "EHLO esa1.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729913AbeKTLpO (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Nov 2018 06:45:14 -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=1542676724; x=1574212724; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KDp4SV5wa6FEhU/tN43Qt3FuqMoswbj9h1vKtM2TQe4=; b=G8oNVOdLf+/7vKAjuH8kCIcoqqKd4j4pXjThGgQ4uzLaiKv+LRtaWiZn 3jcozyd7YdKPUa+PLUb++udlpFztPKht8WohdS3iXsDspwVvhZ1U2mYBS KqT8dlqLuAU67CyKFTRRmH7JA9QlysgbHVcCNLP1JswQfz2hx3PzOt7uO NroFGQZeyKK/Y8NYe/Hai2qp5BAA1ol4501Zh/RdaoRCW9PTDW8sTMmid E6GeaUCFUzw5r6FAtv8pU7hoKyQnnGuW63+3ZfQ2J5TOPBV9m9p4KScJf wyGeO7cvCihDDP56xrmlr9YjY8LbSxKFB8IbVws6XTdkqOUbVKr9kZXIB w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,255,1539619200"; d="scan'208";a="199186970" Received: from h199-255-45-15.hgst.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.15]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2018 09:18:43 +0800 Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com ([10.248.3.37]) by uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2018 17:01:59 -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 17:18:44 -0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries To: Rob Herring , Sudeep Holla Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "palmer@sifive.com" , "anup@brainfault.org" , Damien Le Moal , "mick@ics.forth.gr" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "zong@andestech.com" , "alankao@andestech.com" References: <20181107171344.983-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <5bea0ecf.1c69fb81.7820a.2052@mx.google.com> From: Atish Patra Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:18:42 -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: <5bea0ecf.1c69fb81.7820a.2052@mx.google.com> 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 11/12/18 3:37 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:13:44PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system >> with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes >> representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a >> hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology >> view of how those cores and threads are grouped. >> >> However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to >> describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or >> the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by >> an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling. >> >> Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the >> same. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 52 ++++++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> (Note patch generated with -b option to avoid 60+ of whitespace changes) >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> You had expressed your interest to generalise the CPU topology bindings >> accross multiple architectures. Do you want to move to the generic >> bindings before adding this $subject socket support or is it OK to >> finalise on this and then move the majority(based on the agreement) >> to generic binding. > > Doesn't really matter to me as long as Risc-V folks are in agreement. > > Otherwise, this looks fine to me. > > Rob > > I can apply this patch in my unify topology series and resend everything together as one series. Regards, Atish