From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:11:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
[...]
>
> 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.
>
Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
it's ACPI only.
> What are these intended to apply to?
>
The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
part.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com, juri.lelli@arm.com, anup@brainfault.org,
palmer@sifive.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
jeremy.linton@arm.com, Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
robh+dt@kernel.org, mick@ics.forth.gr,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:11:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin> (raw)
Message-ID: <20181120111146.x4mlVJsRMgwjt7VLnaq-nJ2ce48jyVxJlxUCJh9iK4A@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
[...]
>
> 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.
>
Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
it's ACPI only.
> What are these intended to apply to?
>
The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
part.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:11:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
[...]
>
> 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.
>
Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
it's ACPI only.
> What are these intended to apply to?
>
The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
part.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com,
juri.lelli@arm.com, anup@brainfault.org, palmer@sifive.com,
jeremy.linton@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mick@ics.forth.gr,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:11:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
[...]
>
> 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.
>
Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
it's ACPI only.
> What are these intended to apply to?
>
The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
part.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-20 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-09 1:50 [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` [RFC 1/3] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` [RFC 2/3] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` [RFC 3/3] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-15 18:31 ` [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-15 18:31 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-15 18:31 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-15 18:31 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.