Re: [RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: topology: Add RISC-V cpu topology.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/2/18 8:50 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:11:38AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:31 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:09:39AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:04 PM Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Define a RISC-V cpu topology. This is based on cpu-map in ARM world.
But it doesn't need a separate thread node for defining SMT systems.
Multiple cpu phandle properties can be parsed to identify the sibling
hardware threads. Moreover, we do not have cluster concept in RISC-V.
So package is a better word choice than cluster for RISC-V.

There was a proposal to add package info for ARM recently. Not sure
what happened to that, but we don't need 2 different ways.


We still need that, I can brush it up and post what Lorenzo had previously
proposed[1]. We want to keep both DT and ACPI CPU topology story aligned.

Frankly, I don't care what the ACPI story is. I care whether each cpu

Sorry I meant feature parity with ACPI and didn't refer to the mechanics.

arch does its own thing in DT or not. If a package prop works for
RISC-V folks and that happens to align with ACPI, then okay. Though I
tend to prefer a package represented as a node rather than a property
as I think that's more consistent.


Sounds good. One of the reason for making it *optional* property is for
backward compatibility. But we should be able to deal with that even with
node.


If you are introducing a package node, can we make cluster node optional? I feel it is a redundant node for use cases where one doesn't have a different grouped cpus in a package.

We may have some architecture that requires cluster, it can be added to the DT at that time, I believe.

Any comments on the thread aspect (whether it has ever been used)?
Though I think thread as a node level is more consistent with each
topology level being a node (same with package).

Not 100% sure, the only multi threaded core in the market I know is
Cavium TX2 which is ACPI.


Any advantages of keeping thread node if it's not being used. If I am not wrong, we can always use multiple cpuN phandles to represent SMT nodes. It will result in less code and DT documentation as well.


Regards,
Atish
--
Regards,
Sudeep





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux