[PATCH v3 12/12] acpi, numa: reuse acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init()
Robert Richter
robert.richter at caviumnetworks.com
Thu Jan 28 05:31:08 PST 2016
On 28.01.16 10:48:37, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/1/27 22:18, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 27.01.16 14:15:06, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> Hi Robert,
> >>
> >> On 2016/1/25 18:26, Robert Richter wrote:
> >>> On 23.01.16 17:39:27, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> After the cleanup for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(),
> >>>> it can be used for architetures both x86 and arm64, since
> >>>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not enabled for arm64, so no
> >>>> worry about that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 42 -------------------------------
> >>>> arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 54 ----------------------------------------
> >>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-)
> >>> This one reverts acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to the x86 version.
> >>> I rather would prefer the arm64 version for the generic code. We could
> >>> keep the x86 implementation until x86 maintainers agree to remove them
> >>> and use the generic one (implemented in a separate patch).
> >>>
> >>> Doing so we can move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() from the
> >>> beginning to generic code (used for arm64) and have this last patch to
> >>> remove the x86 version.
> >> I think the x86 version is the generic one, all the flags (ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE and
> >> etc) are defined in the ACPI spec, x86 just use all the flags because it support such features.
> >> For ARM64, firmware should be careful and represent the true platform configuration to
> >> OS, such as on ARM64, we can't set hotpluggable flag as the ARM64 arch don't support
> >> memory hot-plug yet (also the firmware don't support it too), if firmware do things right,
> >> it will be not worries for the kernel.
> > But you are removing all arm64 from your first patches. Why do you
> > introduce acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in the beginning to remove
> > it in the end again? I esp. like the arm64 version because of its
> > direct returns. So I still would like to see generic code for arm64
> > from the beginning. Maybe have a copy of x86 initially and make
> > modifications for arm64 to it, or move missing code (hotplug, etc.)
> > from x86 to generic and remove x86 arch code with the last patch.
>
> OK, so that's the logic and ordering of formatting the patch set, it's easy
> to fix :)
>
> I will introduce the generic code for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init()
> in drivers/acpi/numa.c and mark it as __weak from the beginning, and
> move missing code from x86 to generic, then remove x86 one as you
> suggested, is that OK?
Sounds good to me. Awaiting your updated version. :)
Btw, I tested the whole series, so:
Tested-by: Robert Richter <rrichter at cavium.com>
-Robert
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list