Re: [PATCH] riscv: Move call to init_cpu_topology() to later initialization stage

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1620 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 12:56:32PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 12:18:28PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 10:49:00AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 09:49:48AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:

> > > > Why should we "fix" something that may never be a valid dts?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I would not say invalid. But surely absence of it must be handled and
> > > we do that for sure. IIRC, here the presence of it is causing the issue.
> > > And if it is present means someone is trying to build it(I do understand
> > > this is Qemu but is quite common these days for power and performance
> > > balance in many SoC)
> > 
> > I said "invalid" as the binding is defined for arm{,64} in arm/cpus.yaml
> > & documented in the same directory in cpu-capacity.txt, but not yet on
> > riscv. All bets are off if your cpu node is using invalid properties
> > IMO, at least this one will fail to boot!
> > 
> > However, I see no reason (at this point) that we should deviate from
> > what arm{,64} is doing & that documenation should probably move to a
> > shared location at some point.
> >
> 
> I prefer making this binding generic rather than patching to handle RISC-V
> differently in the generic code. Since it is optional, the platform
> need not use it if it is not needed.

Oh yeah, I was not suggesting making changes in the generic code. We
just need to change our cpu binding to match the arm cpu binding so that
having this property is accepted.

I shall go do that at some point today probably.

Thanks,
Conor.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]