From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <5bea0ecf.1c69fb81.7820a.2052@mx.google.com> From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries References: <20181107171344.983-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181107171344.983-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:13:15 -0600 To: Sudeep Holla Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, palmer@sifive.com, anup@brainfault.org, Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com, mick@ics.forth.gr, atish.patra@wdc.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, zong@andestech.com, alankao@andestech.com List-ID: On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:13:44PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system > with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes > representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a > hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology > view of how those cores and threads are grouped. > > However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to > describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or > the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by > an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling. > > Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the > same. > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 52 ++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > (Note patch generated with -b option to avoid 60+ of whitespace changes) > > Hi Rob, > > You had expressed your interest to generalise the CPU topology bindings > accross multiple architectures. Do you want to move to the generic > bindings before adding this $subject socket support or is it OK to > finalise on this and then move the majority(based on the agreement) > to generic binding. Doesn't really matter to me as long as Risc-V folks are in agreement. Otherwise, this looks fine to me. Rob