From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael>
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 3/5] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code.
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:27:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190415152741.GA28623@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190320234806.19748-4-atish.patra@wdc.com>
Hi Atish,
Thanks again for doing this. Overall changes look good except a couple
of minor nit, see below.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:04PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe
> their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to
> a common place instead of duplicate code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 23 ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 303 +-----------------------------
> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 298 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> drivers/base/topology.c | 1 +
> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 28 +++
> 5 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 323 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index edfcf8d9..6cc6a860 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
> * Written by: Juri Lelli, ARM Ltd.
> */
>
> -#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/arch_topology.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/cpu.h>
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@
> #include <linux/string.h>
> #include <linux/sched/topology.h>
> #include <linux/cpuset.h>
> +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/smp.h>
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>
> @@ -278,3 +283,294 @@ static void parsing_done_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> #else
> core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
> #endif
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
Why can't the above one be just GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY ?
I may be missing to find it myself, but would like to know.
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
Ditto.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-15 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-20 23:48 [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 0/5] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 1/5] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 2/5] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2019-03-24 21:16 ` Rob Herring
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 3/5] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2019-04-15 15:27 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2019-04-15 22:08 ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 13:23 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 18:54 ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology Atish Patra
2019-04-15 15:31 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 21:16 ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 13:09 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 19:04 ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2019-04-10 22:49 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 0/5] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-04-12 17:27 ` Sudeep Holla
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=20190415152741.GA28623@e107155-lin \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmitriy@oss-tech.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=jhugo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=ottosabart@seberm.com \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=peterz@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).