Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code

From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Conor.Dooley@microchip.com
Cc: paul.walmsley@sifive.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
	palmer@rivosinc.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
	will@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
	Daire.McNamara@microchip.com, niklas.cassel@wdc.com,
	damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
	zong.li@sifive.com, kernel@esmil.dk, hahnjo@hahnjo.de,
	guoren@kernel.org, anup@brainfault.org, atishp@atishpatra.org,
	heiko@sntech.de, philipp.tomsich@vrull.eu, robh@kernel.org,
	maz@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Brice.Goglin@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to shared code
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:00:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ytac7G1zlq6WW4jt@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <198b0486-29e7-9729-d137-0470e93038fa@microchip.com>

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 11:51:04AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 12:41, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 06:51:55PM +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.
> >>
> >> CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > 
> > I'd quantify how far back you want this to go. IIUC based on the Fixes
> > tag in the other patch, it should stop at 5.4. If you send a pull
> > request instead and have a fixed commit id, you could add it as a
> > prerequisite on the following patch without a cc stable here.
> 
> I guess a PR might be the easiest way for it anyway, so that both
> yourself and Palmer could merge it?

I guess so, a stable branch would do. Note that Will is handling the
upcoming merging window.

-- 
Catalin

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