From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: acpi: reenumerate topology ids
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:29:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180629102927.GA18043@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180628173243.obydzakh2stfs26w@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > I am not sure if we can ever guarantee that DT and ACPI will get the
> > same ids whatever counter we use as it depends on the order presented in
> > the firmware(DT or ACPI). So I am not for generating ids for core and
> > threads in that way.
>
> I don't believe we have to guarantee that the exact (package,core,thread)
> triplet describing a PE with DT matches ACPI. We just need to guarantee
> that each triplet we select properly puts a PE in the same group as its
> peers. So, as long as we keep the grouping described by DT or ACPI, then
> the (package,core,thread) IDs assigned are pretty arbitrary.
>
If that's the requirement, we already do that. The IDs are just too
arbitrary :)
> I could change the commit message to state we can generate IDs *like*
> DT does (i.e. with counters), even if they may not result in identical
> triplet to PE mappings.
>
Why we need to make it *like DT* ?
> >
> > So I would like to keep it simple and just have this counters for
> > package ids as demonstrated in Shunyong's patch.
> >
>
> If we don't also handle cores when there are threads, then the cores
> will also end up having weird IDs.
>
Yes, but if PPTT says it has valid ID, I would prefer that over DT like
generated.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-29 10:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-28 14:51 [PATCH] arm64: acpi: reenumerate topology ids Andrew Jones
2018-06-28 16:30 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-28 17:12 ` Jeremy Linton
2018-06-29 10:53 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-29 11:42 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-29 11:55 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-29 13:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-29 13:38 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-29 16:03 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-28 17:32 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-29 10:29 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2018-06-29 11:23 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-29 13:29 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-29 15:46 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-29 15:55 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-29 16:48 ` Jeremy Linton
2018-06-29 17:03 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-29 17:23 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-29 18:03 ` Andrew Jones
2018-07-02 14:58 ` Jeffrey Hugo
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=20180629102927.GA18043@e107155-lin \
--to=sudeep.holla@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).