[RFC PATCH v4 3/4] arm64:thunder: Add initial dts for Cavium's Thunder SoC in 2 Node topology.

[Ganapatrao Kulkarni]

Ping?

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni
<gpkulkarni at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni
> <gpkulkarni at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Arnd,
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 22 January 2015 17:47:13 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This seems wrong still: The clusters and cores do not have unique
>>>> numbers. I believe the code will not work correctly, and it won't
>>>> be compliant with the binding from patch 2.
>>>>
>>>> I think the right way here would be to use
>>>>
>>>>         arm,associativity = <0 2 47>;
>>>>
>>>> for cpu at 20f, and
>>>>
>>>>         arm,associativity = <1 3 48>;
>>>>
>>>> for cpu at 10000. Your previous version used the numbers from
>>>> the reg property, which should be fine as well if that helps:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         arm,associativity = <0x0 0x200 0x20f>;
>>>>
>>>>         arm,associativity = <0x10000 0x10000 0x10000>;
>>>>
>>>> which should have the same effect as above, as long as the code
>>>> can handle the numbers not being consecutive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Upon further consideration, I think your patch is correct after
>>> all, but let me check again on PowerPC machines.
>> i have removed, board id which was in previous patch, to keep the
>> associativity aligned to mpidr, ie. socket,cluster id and core id.
>> both previous and current mappings holds good for our design.
>> our topology is 2 sockets(aff2=0and 1) , each having 3
>> clusters(aff1=0to2)and each cluster having 16 cores(aff0:0to15)
>> in associativity property, for our case, only first id(socket id) is
>> mapped to numa, others are mentioned only to describe the topology.
>>>
>>>         Arnd
> any further comments, how we go about these patches?
> please suggest.
>
>> thanks
>> Ganapat
>
> thanks
> Ganapat