From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:00:43 +0000 Message-ID: <20160202170043.GA30358@red-moon> References: <1453541967-3744-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <1453541967-3744-6-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20160201180944.GV24726@rric.localdomain> <56B09344.4000100@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56B09344.4000100@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hanjun Guo Cc: Robert Richter , Hanjun Guo , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Shannon Zhao , Steve Capper , Mark Rutland List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:30:12PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: [...] > >How about the following (similar to x86)? > > > >---- > > if (!numa_off) { > >#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA > > if (!numa_init(acpi_numa_init)) > > return 0; > >#endif > >#ifdef CONFIG_OF_NUMA > > if (!numa_init(of_numa_init)) > > return 0; > >#endif > > } > > > > return numa_init(dummy_numa_init); > >---- > > > >Pretty straight and nice. > > > >Note: The !acpi_disabled check needs to be moved to the beginning of > >acpi_numa_init(). Variable ret can be removed. > > Lorenzo suggested to remove it, Lorenzo, what's your opinion here? I do not think it is a big deal. OF is not a fall-back for ACPI, which is what the code above may make us think, either you parse ACPI or you parse DT. I will have a look at the complete code to check if we can rewrite it differently but I would not be too worried about it. Lorenzo