On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > From: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not > clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to > make this clear. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt > index 4aa20e7a424e..1bd5edc225c1 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt > @@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes: > > whose bindings are described in paragraph 3. > > -The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be > -defined within the cpu-map node. > -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored. > +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only > +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system > +must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is > +consider invalid and therefore must be ignored. s/consider/considered/ (or drop the word entirely?). Otherwise this looks sane to me, given there are currently no users of this information relying on partial topology descriptions. Cheers, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
