From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AE3FC43334 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:07:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=uWn905fURA2s9kiF79AB/Xy/m9tSrH6+rRPen+KYu70=; b=FntqPDTn5uWPYS PN6pC29T7xNR908Wa30yUIjF5PoXJ4Vb/puAzvrxSmMhUV67/NHY7I+cPs1bw5P5AtJK3JB98J0kx ekAHsNNmuWyoYIbpdPOzDzZM7xDu6ROy7/7N3P6tUCIcWFKKJKAYQ8JKWdqhvL2XhvjN1XR3AoyM/ UBi4oxd+ugYSRwVJ8x44pv1tdYffr2zUKYmPVng7mYlyClLVe4CJefPCqtHqpP4qFHtTyaMSzOVW3 CApmbixZiWUuhzW6lEAK6bswenn/7WxI2GGqZuMRsjCnd4Skw5uLUP48ig+Ly7akpA4EYvUMWvNuX jTjM/N7NULUcPvV4sVHQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1o41wE-00B742-QV; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:06:38 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1o41wA-00B72g-Of; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:06:36 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EAD12FC; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ionvoi01-desktop.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.65]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D67D83F792; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:06:29 +0100 From: Ionela Voinescu To: Sudeep Holla Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , Atish Patra , Atish Patra , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Qing Wang , Rob Herring , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Pierre Gondois , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 20/20] arch_topology: Warn that topology for nested clusters is not supported Message-ID: References: <20220621192034.3332546-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20220621192034.3332546-21-sudeep.holla@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220621192034.3332546-21-sudeep.holla@arm.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220622_080634_887080_BFCB5F7F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 18.84 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi, I just noticed this in a quick test. On Tuesday 21 Jun 2022 at 20:20:34 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote: > We don't support the topology for clusters of CPU clusters while the > DT and ACPI bindings theoritcally support the same. Just warn about the > same so that it is clear to the users of arch_topology that the nested > clusters are not yet supported. > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > --- > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > index ed1cb64a95aa..1c5fa7bbbd00 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > @@ -567,6 +567,8 @@ static int __init parse_cluster(struct device_node *cluster, int package_id, > if (c) { > leaf = false; > ret = parse_cluster(c, package_id, i, depth + 1); > + if (depth > 1) > + pr_warn("Topology for clusters of clusters not yet supported\n"); I think the check should be for (depth > 0) or (depth >= 1). We end up having depth = 2 when we have cluster 0 { //depth is 0 cluster 0 { //depth is 1 cluster0 { //depth is 2 ... I suppose we should warn about nested clusters from depth 1, right? Thanks, Ionela. > of_node_put(c); > if (ret != 0) > return ret; > -- > 2.36.1 > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel