On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 6:59 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On 9/28/21 12:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 1:42 AM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> There is no device node for the empty NUMA node. However, the > >> corresponding NUMA node ID and distance map is still valid in > >> "numa-distance-map-v1" compatible device node. > >> > >> This fetches the NUMA node ID and distance map for these empty > >> NUMA node from "numa-distance-map-v1" compatible device node. > > > > This is much nicer. > > > > Indeed, thanks for your suggestions :) > > >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/of/of_numa.c | 2 ++ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c > >> index fe6b13608e51..5949829a1b00 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c > >> +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c > >> @@ -111,6 +111,8 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map) > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >> > >> + node_set(nodea, numa_nodes_parsed); > >> + > > > > With this, couldn't we remove of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes() as the only > > thing it does is node_set()? > > > > I don't think so for couple of reasons: > > (1) With problematic device-tree, the distance map node might be missed > or incomplete. In this case, of_numa_parse_cpu_nodes() still helps. It's not the kernel's job to validate the DT (if it was, it is doing a terrible job). I would suggest writing some checks for dtc if we're worried about correctness. (The schemas don't work too well for cross node checks.) > (2) @numa_nodes_parsed is also updated when the memory nodes are iterated > in of_numa_parse_memory_nodes() and numa_add_memblk(). > > So @numa_nodes_parsed, which is synchronized to @node_possible_map afterwards, > is the gathering output of CPU nodes, memory nodes and distance map node. Is it valid to have node id's that are not in the distance map? Rob
