From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: arm64/arm: dt bindings for numa. Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:51:39 +0100 Message-ID: <2133591.n7Y4zNvRib@wuerfel> References: <1416605010-10442-1-git-send-email-ganapatrao.kulkarni@caviumnetworks.com> <2966212.dpWQ0OTb0A@wuerfel> <54753AED.3050909@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54753AED.3050909-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Shannon Zhao Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Hanjun Guo , Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Will.Deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, leif.lindholm-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, roy.franz-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, steve.capper-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, jchandra-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, al.stone-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, gpkulkarni-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 26 November 2014 10:29:01 Shannon Zhao wrote: > On 2014/11/25 19:02, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > No, don't hardcode ARM specifics into a common binding either. I've looked > > at the ibm,associativity properties again, and I think we should just use > > those, they can cover all cases and are completely independent of the > > architecture. We should probably discuss about the property name though, > > as using the "ibm," prefix might not be the best idea. > > > > Yeah, I have read the relevant codes in qemu. I think the "ibm,associativity" is more scalable:-) Ok > About the prefix, my opinion is that as this is relevant with NUMA, > maybe we can use "numa" as the prefix. A prefix should really be the name of a company or institution, so it could be "arm" or "linux", but not "numa". Would could use "numa-associativity" with a dash instead of a comma, but that would still be somewhat imprecise because the associativity property is about system topology inside of a NUMA domain as well, such as cores, core clusters or SMT threads that only share caches but not physical memory addresses. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html