[PATCH 0/4] arm64 topology support

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:05:45PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 08:06:11PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> >  - Should we update the binding to allow cores in the root cpu_map node
> >    (since it's less effort in code and not a meaningful difference
> >    semantically), warn if we find cores in the cpu_map node or actively
> >    reject such DTs?

> I think cpu-map must only contain cluster nodes as descendant children. This
> to prevent creative DTs with cluster and core nodes at top topology level.
> Overall it makes sense, cores can only exist in a cluster container, might
> seem churn but at least that's strict.

That still leaves the question of what you want to happen with such
maps.

> > In both cases I don't much mind but I think what's there is reasonable
> > so I've left the code as-is pending further feedback.  I also didn't
> > update the code to get more reuse of the iteration code, like I said I
> > did look at that when writing the code but couldn't find anything that
> > actually made things more pleasant but if someone has some ideas...

> I still think that most of the DT parsing code can and should be reused
> also for other purposes (eg IRQ affinity). Comments on the patches
> concerned.

I'm not seeing any mails there...  Note that most of the code is there
because the binding took the decision to build the numbering for the
subnodes into the names which is very unusual for DT and hence not very
something the tooling works well with.  Do these other bindings have the
same problem?  

get_cpu_for_node() could probably be shifted into a header, perhaps when
there's other users though.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140107/02c474e9/attachment.sig>