Re: [PATCH] riscv: Move call to init_cpu_topology() to later initialization stage

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Leyfoon Tan <leyfoon.tan@starfivetech.com>,
	Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ley Foon Tan <lftan.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: Move call to init_cpu_topology() to later initialization stage
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 13:24:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y7V+HJk8twZXcdcf@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230104125632.ktoyt7mxjjxq5udm@bogus>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1620 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 12:56:32PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 12:18:28PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 10:49:00AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 09:49:48AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > > > Why should we "fix" something that may never be a valid dts?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I would not say invalid. But surely absence of it must be handled and
> > > we do that for sure. IIRC, here the presence of it is causing the issue.
> > > And if it is present means someone is trying to build it(I do understand
> > > this is Qemu but is quite common these days for power and performance
> > > balance in many SoC)
> > 
> > I said "invalid" as the binding is defined for arm{,64} in arm/cpus.yaml
> > & documented in the same directory in cpu-capacity.txt, but not yet on
> > riscv. All bets are off if your cpu node is using invalid properties
> > IMO, at least this one will fail to boot!
> > 
> > However, I see no reason (at this point) that we should deviate from
> > what arm{,64} is doing & that documenation should probably move to a
> > shared location at some point.
> >
> 
> I prefer making this binding generic rather than patching to handle RISC-V
> differently in the generic code. Since it is optional, the platform
> need not use it if it is not needed.

Oh yeah, I was not suggesting making changes in the generic code. We
just need to change our cpu binding to match the arm cpu binding so that
having this property is accepted.

I shall go do that at some point today probably.

Thanks,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv