From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:31:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20190415153147.GB28623@e107155-lin> References: <20190320234806.19748-1-atish.patra@wdc.com> <20190320234806.19748-5-atish.patra@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190320234806.19748-5-atish.patra@wdc.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+glpr-linux-riscv=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Atish Patra Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou , Ard Biesheuvel , Dmitriy Cherkasov , Anup Patel , Palmer Dabbelt , Will Deacon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Linton , Johan Hovold , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Rob Herring , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Otto Sabart , Paul Walmsley , Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar , Morten Rasmussen List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:05PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to > represent their cpu toplogies. Since, we are moving the ARM64 > topology to common code to be used by other architectures, we > can reuse that for ARM32 as well. > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra > --- > arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 22 +--------------------- > arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 10 +++++----- > include/linux/arch_topology.h | 10 +++++++++- > 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > [...] > diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h > index d4e76e0a..7c850611 100644 > --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h > +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h > @@ -36,17 +36,25 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu) > struct cpu_topology { > int thread_id; > int core_id; > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY > + int socket_id; Sorry, but I can't find any reason why we need to do this ifdef dance here, especially for socket_id vs package_id ? Other's I can understand as there are new, but I am sure we can find a way and get away with #ifdefery here completely. > +#else > int package_id; > int llc_id; > + cpumask_t llc_sibling; > +#endif > cpumask_t thread_sibling; > cpumask_t core_sibling; > - cpumask_t llc_sibling; > }; > > #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY > extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY > +#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu) (cpu_topology[cpu].socket_id) > +#else > #define topology_physical_package_id(cpu) (cpu_topology[cpu].package_id) > +#endif Since all callsites must use topology_physical_package_id, we should be able to rename socket_id to package_id easily. -- Regards, Sudeep