From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: topology: Add support for topology DT bindings
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:01:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140321150118.GH13596@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140321111353.GA24945@sirena.org.uk>
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:13:53AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 05:19:32PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 01:43:57PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Given ACPI (which really looks like it's going to happen at some point
> > > and presumably make OF optional) I'm not sure removing the handling of
> > > OF is actually constructive but whatever, it's done now...
>
> > CONFIG_OF will always be enabled in the kernel even when we get ACPI. We
> > still use the chosen DT node to tell the kernel about ACPI.
>
> One thing that occurs to me with this - if we've always got a DT even if
> we are booting with ACPI that might confuse code that implements
> handling for firmware idioms.
The DT presented on an ACPI-capable system only contains the chosen
node (I guess the DT will not even be unflattened) .So the topology
code would check for DT, if not it would check for ACPI (or the other
way around) and only after that fall back to hardware MPIDR. I'm not
sure whether current ACPI gives us rich enough information about
topology like DT, in which case it could simply use MPIDR.
> I was aware that there was a stub DT on ACPI systems but had expected
> that if we were booting with real ACPI support that'd get masked from
> the running system.
That's the plan. The original point was that CONFIG_OF is going to stay
even if CONFIG_ACPI is enabled. But we shouldn't mix the two, so most of
the DT information will not be available to the kernel (not even
CPU topology) if ACPI tables are provided.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-21 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-19 18:02 [PATCH 1/3] arm64: topology: Add support for topology DT bindings Mark Brown
2014-03-19 18:02 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64: topology: Tell the scheduler about the relative power of cores Mark Brown
2014-03-19 18:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64: topology: Provide relative power numbers for cores Mark Brown
2014-03-20 11:26 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm64: topology: Add support for topology DT bindings Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-03-20 13:43 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-20 17:19 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-20 17:52 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-21 14:52 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-03-21 11:13 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-21 15:01 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2014-03-21 15:36 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-20 18:08 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-03-21 11:32 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-21 15:16 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-03-21 16:06 ` Mark Brown
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-03-05 8:59 Mark Brown
2014-03-19 16:04 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-03-19 16:33 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-19 16:50 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-03-19 17:03 ` Mark Brown
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=20140321150118.GH13596@arm.com \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).