From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Atish Patra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:18:42 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20181107171344.983-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <5bea0ecf.1c69fb81.7820a.2052@mx.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5bea0ecf.1c69fb81.7820a.2052@mx.google.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring , Sudeep Holla Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "palmer@sifive.com" , "anup@brainfault.org" , Damien Le Moal , "mick@ics.forth.gr" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "zong@andestech.com" , "alankao@andestech.com" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/12/18 3:37 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > 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 > > I can apply this patch in my unify topology series and resend everything together as one series. Regards, Atish