From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/6] arm64/arm, numa, dt: adding numa dt binding implementation for arm64 platforms. Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:08:24 +0000 Message-ID: <20160128180824.GP775@arm.com> References: <1453134965-6125-1-git-send-email-gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com> <1453134965-6125-4-git-send-email-gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com> <20160126203603.GC17600@localhost> <20160128143925.GC775@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ia64-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ganapatrao Kulkarni Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Ganapatrao Kulkarni , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-metag@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Grant Likely , Leif Lindholm , rfranz@cavium.com, Ard Biesheuvel , "msalter@redhat.com" , Rob Herring , Steve Capper , Hanjun Guo , Al Stone Ar List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:42:17PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:36:04PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> Subject is "arm64/arm, numa, dt: adding ..." What is the significance > >> of the "arm" part? The other patches only mention "arm64". > >> > >> General comment: the code below has little, if anything, that is > >> actually arm64-specific. Maybe this is the first DT-based NUMA > >> platform? I don't see other similar code for other arches, so maybe > >> it's too early to try to generalize it, but we should try to avoid > >> adding duplicates of this code if/when other arches do show up. > > > > Having it in the core code would allow us to share it with arch/arm/ > > fairly straightforwardly. > This binding can be used for arm too. > however at this moment it is the need of arm64 platforms. > can we please keep this to arm64 as it's too early to try to > generalize it(as Bjorn suggested) > I prefer to keep it as it is, otherwise ok. > Please suggest. My suggestions time and time again on the NUMA patches from you have consistently been around consolidation of existing code, or moving things that aren't architecture-specific out of the architecture code. Will