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
