On 4/16/19 6:23 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
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 ?
I didn't want change too much at first go.
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.
Sure. I will just leave parse_dt_topology as it is for now and unify
other two functions.
I think we should unify parse_dt_topology in separate series.
Regards,
Atish
In fact the existing generic version must work on ARM32 too.
Thanks for the review!!
You are welcome.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
