All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <mail@conchuod.ie>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@wdc.com>,
	Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>,
	Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
	Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:50:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ysw4voXuz+tcSKhf@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220711143542.nlq6a5nuh4nouomo@bogus>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 03:35:42PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 04:23:54PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > 
> > arm64's method of defining a default cpu topology requires only minimal
> > changes to apply to RISC-V also. The current arm64 implementation exits
> > early in a uniprocessor configuration by reading MPIDR & claiming that
> > uniprocessor can rely on the default values.
> > 
> > This is appears to be a hangover from prior to '3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64:
> > topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information")', because the
> > current code just assigns default values for multiprocessor systems.
> > 
> > With the MPIDR references removed, store_cpu_topolgy() can be moved to
> > the common arch_topology code.
> >
> 
> Looks good. FWIW,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> > CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> However, while I understand the reason why this is needed in stable trees
> for RISC-V, I am not sure if we want this for stable tree at-least on arm64.
> I leave that part to Greg and Will.

Why would it be good for one arch but bad for another?

_______________________________________________
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: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <mail@conchuod.ie>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@wdc.com>,
	Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>,
	Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
	Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:50:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ysw4voXuz+tcSKhf@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220711143542.nlq6a5nuh4nouomo@bogus>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 03:35:42PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 04:23:54PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > 
> > arm64's method of defining a default cpu topology requires only minimal
> > changes to apply to RISC-V also. The current arm64 implementation exits
> > early in a uniprocessor configuration by reading MPIDR & claiming that
> > uniprocessor can rely on the default values.
> > 
> > This is appears to be a hangover from prior to '3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64:
> > topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information")', because the
> > current code just assigns default values for multiprocessor systems.
> > 
> > With the MPIDR references removed, store_cpu_topolgy() can be moved to
> > the common arch_topology code.
> >
> 
> Looks good. FWIW,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> > CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> However, while I understand the reason why this is needed in stable trees
> for RISC-V, I am not sure if we want this for stable tree at-least on arm64.
> I leave that part to Greg and Will.

Why would it be good for one arch but bad for another?

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <mail@conchuod.ie>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@microchip.com>,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
	Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@wdc.com>,
	Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>,
	Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
	Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
	Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:50:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ysw4voXuz+tcSKhf@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220711143542.nlq6a5nuh4nouomo@bogus>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 03:35:42PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 04:23:54PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > 
> > arm64's method of defining a default cpu topology requires only minimal
> > changes to apply to RISC-V also. The current arm64 implementation exits
> > early in a uniprocessor configuration by reading MPIDR & claiming that
> > uniprocessor can rely on the default values.
> > 
> > This is appears to be a hangover from prior to '3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64:
> > topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information")', because the
> > current code just assigns default values for multiprocessor systems.
> > 
> > With the MPIDR references removed, store_cpu_topolgy() can be moved to
> > the common arch_topology code.
> >
> 
> Looks good. FWIW,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> 
> > CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 
> However, while I understand the reason why this is needed in stable trees
> for RISC-V, I am not sure if we want this for stable tree at-least on arm64.
> I leave that part to Greg and Will.

Why would it be good for one arch but bad for another?

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-11 14:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-09 15:23 [PATCH v3 0/2] Fix RISC-V's arch-topology reporting Conor Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23 ` Conor Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23 ` Conor Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code Conor Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23   ` Conor Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23   ` Conor Dooley
2022-07-11 14:35   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 14:35     ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 14:35     ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 14:50     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2022-07-11 14:50       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-07-11 14:50       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-07-11 15:24       ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 15:24         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 15:24         ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 16:39         ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-11 16:39           ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-11 16:39           ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] riscv: topology: fix default topology reporting Conor Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23   ` Conor Dooley
2022-07-09 15:23   ` Conor Dooley
2022-07-11 14:59   ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 14:59     ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 14:59     ` Sudeep Holla
2022-07-11 16:28     ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-11 16:28       ` Conor.Dooley
2022-07-11 16:28       ` Conor.Dooley

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=Ysw4voXuz+tcSKhf@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=Brice.Goglin@inria.fr \
    --cc=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
    --cc=daire.mcnamara@microchip.com \
    --cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=guoren@kernel.org \
    --cc=hahnjo@hahnjo.de \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=kernel@esmil.dk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mail@conchuod.ie \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=niklas.cassel@wdc.com \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=palmer@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=zong.li@sifive.com \
    /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.