From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@kernel.org (Mark Brown) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:36:45 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: topology: Add support for topology DT bindings In-Reply-To: <20140321150118.GH13596@arm.com> References: <1395252139-16239-1-git-send-email-broonie@kernel.org> <20140320112650.GA1408@red-moon> <20140320134357.GE11706@sirena.org.uk> <20140320171930.GA28238@arm.com> <20140321111353.GA24945@sirena.org.uk> <20140321150118.GH13596@arm.com> Message-ID: <20140321153645.GA552@sirena.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 03:01:18PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:13:53AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > One thing that occurs to me with this - if we've always got a DT even if > > we are booting with ACPI that might confuse code that implements > > handling for firmware idioms. > The DT presented on an ACPI-capable system only contains the chosen > node (I guess the DT will not even be unflattened) .So the topology > code would check for DT, if not it would check for ACPI (or the other > way around) and only after that fall back to hardware MPIDR. I'm not > sure whether current ACPI gives us rich enough information about > topology like DT, in which case it could simply use MPIDR. Sorry, this isn't related to topology - it's to do with other code that checks if a DT was present and makes decisions based on that. So long as of_have_populated_dt() doesn't report true things should be fine but it's something to watch out for. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: