On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 05:18:42PM -0800, Atish Patra wrote: > On 11/12/18 3:37 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 05:13:44PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > The current ARM DT topology description provides the operating system > > > with a topological view of the system that is based on leaf nodes > > > representing either cores or threads (in an SMT system) and a > > > hierarchical set of cluster nodes that creates a hierarchical topology > > > view of how those cores and threads are grouped. > > > > > > However this hierarchical representation of clusters does not allow to > > > describe what topology level actually represents the physical package or > > > the socket boundary, which is a key piece of information to be used by > > > an operating system to optimize resource allocation and scheduling. > > > > > > Lets add a new "socket" node type in the cpu-map node to describe the > > > same. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 52 ++++++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > > > (Note patch generated with -b option to avoid 60+ of whitespace changes) > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > You had expressed your interest to generalise the CPU topology bindings > > > accross multiple architectures. Do you want to move to the generic > > > bindings before adding this $subject socket support or is it OK to > > > finalise on this and then move the majority(based on the agreement) > > > to generic binding. > > > > Doesn't really matter to me as long as Risc-V folks are in agreement. > > > > Otherwise, this looks fine to me. > > > > Rob > > > > > I can apply this patch in my unify topology series and resend everything > together as one series. Thanks for that. You can drop RFC when reposting. Remember to use -b for ignoring space changes on this patch along with -M for renames in your original patch series. -- Regards, Sudeep
