On 11/20/2018 4:11 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
[...]
I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since this
series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I
can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches
cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted.
Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
it's ACPI only.
It is ACPI only in the production configuration. I suppose we could
hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and
non-trivial.
What are these intended to apply to?
The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
part.
On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would
also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and
ACPI). I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a
sanity check on actual hardware.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
