On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 06:44:39PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > On 2016/8/26 23:35, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:53PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > >> Update documentation. This limit is unneccessary. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <[email protected]> > >> Acked-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt | 1 - > >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt > >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt > >> index 21b3505..c0ea4a7 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/numa.txt > >> @@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ distance (memory latency) between all numa nodes. > >> > >> Note: > >> 1. Each entry represents distance from first node to second node. > >> - The distances are equal in either direction. > > > > Hmm, so what happens now if firmware provides a description where both > > distances (in either direction) are supplied, but are different? > I have not known any hardware that the distances of two direction are > different yet
Then let's not add support for this just yet. When we have systems that actually need it, we'll be in a much better position to assess the suitability of any patches. At the moment, the whole thing is pretty questionable and it adds needless complication to the code. Will
