On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 03:08:45PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > On 4/15/19 8:27 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > Hi Atish, > > > > Thanks again for doing this. Overall changes look good except a couple > > of minor nit, see below. > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:04PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > > > Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe > > > their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to > > > a common place instead of duplicate code. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@xxxxxxx> > > > Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 23 --- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 303 +----------------------------- > > > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 298 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > drivers/base/topology.c | 1 + > > > include/linux/arch_topology.h | 28 +++ > > > 5 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 323 deletions(-) > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > > > index edfcf8d9..6cc6a860 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > > > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > > > @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ > > > * Written by: Juri Lelli, ARM Ltd. > > > */ > > > -#include <linux/acpi.h> > > > #include <linux/arch_topology.h> > > > +#include <linux/acpi.h> > > > #include <linux/cpu.h> > > > #include <linux/cpufreq.h> > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@ > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > #include <linux/sched/topology.h> > > > #include <linux/cpuset.h> > > > +#include <linux/cpumask.h> > > > +#include <linux/init.h> > > > +#include <linux/percpu.h> > > > +#include <linux/sched.h> > > > +#include <linux/smp.h> > > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE; > > > @@ -278,3 +283,294 @@ static void parsing_done_workfn(struct work_struct *work) > > > #else > > > core_initcall(free_raw_capacity); > > > #endif > > > + > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV) > > > > Why can't the above one be just GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY ? > > I may be missing to find it myself, but would like to know. > > > GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY is now used for both RISCV, ARM & ARM64. > The below functions under this #ifdef have different implementation for ARM > and ARM64. > > parse_dt_topology > cpu_coregroup_mask > update_siblings_masks > > While we can combine the later two functions and move them to common code as > well, parse_dt_topology is significantly different. > Sure, had a quick glance and indeed they may look different, but won't it defeat the purpose of this binding consolidation ? > That's why we need some kind of #ifdef or renaming of parse_dt_topology for > ARM32 code. > I am fine if we want to take this up later to keep the impact minimum. But cpu_coregroup_mask and update_siblings_masks can and must be unified. In fact the existing generic version must work on ARM32 too. > Thanks for the review!! > You are welcome. -- Regards, Sudeep
