[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Mark Brown]

From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>

The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
make this clear.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index 4aa20e7a424e..1bd5edc225c1 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
 
 whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
 
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
-defined within the cpu-map node.
-Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
+be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
+must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
+consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
 
 ===========================================
 2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Mark Rutland]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
> 
> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
> make this clear.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> index 4aa20e7a424e..1bd5edc225c1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
>  
>  whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
>  
> -The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
> -defined within the cpu-map node.
> -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> +must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
> +consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.

s/consider/considered/ (or drop the word entirely?).

Otherwise this looks sane to me, given there are currently no users of
this information relying on partial topology descriptions.

Cheers,
Mark.

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:32:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> > +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> > +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> > +must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
> > +consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.

> s/consider/considered/ (or drop the word entirely?).

Yup (that's a preexisting thing in the text that got reflowed).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140321/4da148ef/attachment-0001.sig>

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Mark Brown]

From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>

The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
make this clear.

Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index 4aa20e7..1061faf 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
 
 whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
 
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
-defined within the cpu-map node.
-Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
+be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
+must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
+invalid and therefore must be ignored.
 
 ===========================================
 2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:21:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
> 
> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
> make this clear.
> 
> Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
> final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".

I think the commit log should be reworded, we update the bindings
because they are incomplete, not because ARMv8 code decided to reject
topologies that omit CPUs.

Patch is ok with me, thanks:

Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>

> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> index 4aa20e7..1061faf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
>  
>  whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
>  
> -The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
> -defined within the cpu-map node.
> -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> +must be defined within the topology.  Any other configuration is
> +invalid and therefore must be ignored.
>  
>  ===========================================
>  2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 
> 

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:21:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
>>
>> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
>> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
>> make this clear.
>>
>> Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
>> final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".
>
> I think the commit log should be reworded, we update the bindings
> because they are incomplete, not because ARMv8 code decided to reject
> topologies that omit CPUs.
>
> Patch is ok with me, thanks:
>
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>

Applied for 3.15.

Rob

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi

> > Patch is ok with me, thanks:

> > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>

> Applied for 3.15.

Catalin already sent this to Linus I think unless I got my patches
confused.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140411/40e4d3db/attachment.sig>

[PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>
>> > Patch is ok with me, thanks:
>
>> > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
>
>> Applied for 3.15.
>
> Catalin already sent this to Linus I think unless I got my patches
> confused.

Yes, you're right.

Rob