From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:15:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20160426121547.GL27312@arm.com> References: <1461116439-22991-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> <20160425111338.GJ16065@arm.com> <571E4A2A.8070908@caviumnetworks.com> <571EFD1B.1070609@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <571EFD1B.1070609@linaro.org> Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hanjun Guo Cc: David Daney , David Daney , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Grant Likely , Robert Moore , Lv Zheng , Marc Zyngier , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Richter , David Daney List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote: > >On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote: > >>>From: David Daney > >>> > >>>Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 [1],this patch > >>>set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA > >>>information. > >>> > >>>ACPI 5.1 already introduced NUMA support for ARM64, which can get the > >>>NUMA domain information from SRAT and SLIT table, so parse those two > >>>tables to get mappings from cpu/mem to numa node configuration and > >>>system locality. > >> > >>Whilst I've queued the main NUMA series for arm64, I'd really like to > >>see more movement on the generic header file cleanups that you posted > >>separately: > >> > >>http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456358528-24213-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com > >> > > > >FWIW: Those patches should still apply. I am carrying them in my > >development trees, and have not changed them in any way. What's your plan for getting them merged? > >>Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch > >>interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up > >>patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can > >>get that queued as a pre-requisite. > > > >The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI > >things. I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and > >both seem to work. With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing > >jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file > >cleanup series. > > I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and > consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set > as it's self-contained. Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with that. Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:15:48 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64 Message-Id: <20160426121547.GL27312@arm.com> List-Id: References: <1461116439-22991-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> <20160425111338.GJ16065@arm.com> <571E4A2A.8070908@caviumnetworks.com> <571EFD1B.1070609@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <571EFD1B.1070609@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hanjun Guo Cc: David Daney , David Daney , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Grant Likely , Robert Moore , Lv Zheng , Marc Zyngier , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Richter , David Daney On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote: > >On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote: > >>>From: David Daney > >>> > >>>Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 [1],this patch > >>>set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA > >>>information. > >>> > >>>ACPI 5.1 already introduced NUMA support for ARM64, which can get the > >>>NUMA domain information from SRAT and SLIT table, so parse those two > >>>tables to get mappings from cpu/mem to numa node configuration and > >>>system locality. > >> > >>Whilst I've queued the main NUMA series for arm64, I'd really like to > >>see more movement on the generic header file cleanups that you posted > >>separately: > >> > >>http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456358528-24213-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com > >> > > > >FWIW: Those patches should still apply. I am carrying them in my > >development trees, and have not changed them in any way. What's your plan for getting them merged? > >>Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch > >>interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up > >>patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can > >>get that queued as a pre-requisite. > > > >The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI > >things. I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and > >both seem to work. With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing > >jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file > >cleanup series. > > I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and > consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set > as it's self-contained. Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with that. Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:15:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64 In-Reply-To: <571EFD1B.1070609@linaro.org> References: <1461116439-22991-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> <20160425111338.GJ16065@arm.com> <571E4A2A.8070908@caviumnetworks.com> <571EFD1B.1070609@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20160426121547.GL27312@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote: > >On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote: > >>>From: David Daney > >>> > >>>Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 [1],this patch > >>>set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA > >>>information. > >>> > >>>ACPI 5.1 already introduced NUMA support for ARM64, which can get the > >>>NUMA domain information from SRAT and SLIT table, so parse those two > >>>tables to get mappings from cpu/mem to numa node configuration and > >>>system locality. > >> > >>Whilst I've queued the main NUMA series for arm64, I'd really like to > >>see more movement on the generic header file cleanups that you posted > >>separately: > >> > >>http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456358528-24213-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm at gmail.com > >> > > > >FWIW: Those patches should still apply. I am carrying them in my > >development trees, and have not changed them in any way. What's your plan for getting them merged? > >>Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch > >>interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up > >>patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can > >>get that queued as a pre-requisite. > > > >The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI > >things. I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and > >both seem to work. With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing > >jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file > >cleanup series. > > I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and > consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set > as it's self-contained. Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with that. Will