From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC] Add Arm cpu topology definition
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:36:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E0100BF.6080500@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=ik=iRtDb3K__CPxSH_8GusoBHKA@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/16/2011 11:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 16 June 2011 21:40, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> The ARM ARM says these fields are IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED meaning that
>> different vendors may attribute different meaning to these fields if
>> they wish. Does that mean this should be a platform_*() function?
>>
> The ARM ARM also provides a recommended use of the fields of this
> register and the TRM of each Cortex adds some details. On the cortex
> A9, each platform can only set the value of the Cluster ID with the
> CLUSTERID pins. I have tried to consolidate the value of MPIDR across
> several platforms and they all match with the description.
>
> Have you got an example of a MPIDR register which doesn't match with
> the implementation ?
Not that I know of. I'm more concerned with how the ARM ARM has two
recommended usages for these fields depending on virtualization or not.
I suppose we can handle that issue when it arises (or does your
implementation already handle that?)
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Add Arm cpu topology definition
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:36:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E0100BF.6080500@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=ik=iRtDb3K__CPxSH_8GusoBHKA@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/16/2011 11:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 16 June 2011 21:40, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> The ARM ARM says these fields are IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED meaning that
>> different vendors may attribute different meaning to these fields if
>> they wish. Does that mean this should be a platform_*() function?
>>
> The ARM ARM also provides a recommended use of the fields of this
> register and the TRM of each Cortex adds some details. On the cortex
> A9, each platform can only set the value of the Cluster ID with the
> CLUSTERID pins. I have tried to consolidate the value of MPIDR across
> several platforms and they all match with the description.
>
> Have you got an example of a MPIDR register which doesn't match with
> the implementation ?
Not that I know of. I'm more concerned with how the ARM ARM has two
recommended usages for these fields depending on virtualization or not.
I suppose we can handle that issue when it arises (or does your
implementation already handle that?)
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-21 20:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-16 8:49 [RFC] Add Arm cpu topology definition Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 8:49 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 8:55 ` Samuel Thibault
2011-06-16 8:55 ` Samuel Thibault
2011-06-16 9:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 9:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 9:47 ` Samuel Thibault
2011-06-16 9:47 ` Samuel Thibault
2011-06-16 9:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 9:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 10:49 ` Daniel Lezcano
2011-06-16 10:49 ` Daniel Lezcano
2011-06-16 12:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 12:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 11:48 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-06-16 11:48 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-06-16 12:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 12:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 11:55 ` Amit Kachhap
2011-06-16 11:55 ` Amit Kachhap
2011-06-16 12:10 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 12:10 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 13:24 ` Christian Robottom Reis
2011-06-16 13:24 ` Christian Robottom Reis
2011-06-16 13:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 13:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-16 19:40 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-16 19:40 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-17 6:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-17 6:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-21 20:36 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2011-06-21 20:36 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-22 9:17 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-22 9:17 ` Catalin Marinas
2011-06-22 10:19 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-06-22 10:19 ` Amit Kucheria
2011-06-16 21:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-16 21:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-17 7:43 ` Vincent Guittot
2011-06-17 7:43 ` Vincent Guittot
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=4E0100BF.6080500@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@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.