[PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64
will.deacon at arm.com
Tue Apr 26 05:15:48 PDT 2016
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote:
> >On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> >>>From: David Daney <david.daney at cavium.com>
> >>>Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 ,this patch
> >>>set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA
> >>>ACPI 5.1 already introduced NUMA support for ARM64, which can get the
> >>>NUMA domain information from SRAT and SLIT table, so parse those two
> >>>tables to get mappings from cpu/mem to numa node configuration and
> >>>system locality.
> >>Whilst I've queued the main NUMA series for arm64, I'd really like to
> >>see more movement on the generic header file cleanups that you posted
> >FWIW: Those patches should still apply. I am carrying them in my
> >development trees, and have not changed them in any way.
What's your plan for getting them merged?
> >>Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch
> >>interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up
> >>patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can
> >>get that queued as a pre-requisite.
> >The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI
> >things. I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and
> >both seem to work. With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing
> >jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file
> >cleanup series.
> I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and
> consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set
> as it's self-contained.
Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of
cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with
More information about the linux-arm-kernel