From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a
 common binding.
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:05:31 +0100
Message-ID: <20190603090531.GA26487@e107155-lin>
References: <20190529211340.17087-1-atish.patra@wdc.com>
 <20190529211340.17087-3-atish.patra@wdc.com>
 <0515d803-0da5-dcbe-3d3e-bb786b320d8b@arm.com>
 <28118149-193d-2a8a-995a-2f1829e95c1c@wdc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <28118149-193d-2a8a-995a-2f1829e95c1c@wdc.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Cc: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>, "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, Albert Ou <aou@>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 01:49:13AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> On 5/30/19 1:55 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 5/29/19 4:13 PM, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > cpu-map binding can be used to described cpu topology for both
> > > RISC-V & ARM. It makes more sense to move the binding to document
> > > to a common place.
> > >
> > > The relevant discussion can be found here.
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >    .../topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt}     | 82 +++++++++++++++----
> > >    1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >    rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/{arm/topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} (86%)
> > >

[...]

> > <nit picking>
> >
> > While socket is optional, its probably a good idea to include the node
> > in the example even if the result is the same.
>
> Sure. I will update that.
>
> That is because at least
> > on arm64 the DT clusters=sockets decision had performance implications
> > for larger systems.
> >
> > Assuring the socket information is correct is helpful by itself to avoid
> > having to explain why a single socket machine is displaying some other
> > value in lscpu.
> >
> Just for my understanding, can you give a example?
>

That's simple. Today any ARM{32,64} DT based platform sets their cluster
id to physical package id, which is exposed to userspace. The userspace
can/must interpret that as multi-socket system. E.g. TC2/Juno which
2 clusters show up as 2 socket systems which is wrong and needs fixing.
We have fixed it for ARM64 ACPI based systems but for DT(mostly used in
mobile/embedded) we need to make sure we don't break anything else before
we fix it.

--
Regards,
Sudeep