On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Steve Capper <steve.capper@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:25:56PM +0100, Steve Capper wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > > [...] > >> /*Proximity Distance matrix for 4Node system >> > <from-node to-node distance> >> > */ >> > node-matrix= <0 0 10>, >> > <0 1 20>, >> > <0 2 30>, >> > <0 3 10>, >> > <1 0 20>, >> > <1 1 10>, >> > <1 2 30>, >> > <1 3 10>, >> > <2 0 30>, >> > <2 1 20>, >> > <2 2 10>, >> > <2 3 10>, >> > <3 0 10>, >> > <3 1 20>, >> > <3 2 30>, >> > <3 3 10>, >> > } >> >> Hi Ganapat, >> The above caught my attention. >> >> For a 4-node system do we not need 16 distances; the implication of that >> would be that the distance between node A-B could be different from the >> distance between B-A? Also the distance from a node to itself could be >> safely assumed to be zero? >> >> I think we should have a symmetric matrix with zero-diagonals so strictly >> only seven values would need specifying for a 4-node system. Thanks Stave for the comments. I too thought initially to take the assumption like distance B-A is same as A-B and A-A is always defined to LOCAL. However this example is an ideal case which will define all 16 distances for 4 node system. In actual DT, we can skip to provide A-A and B-A, In kernel implementation we will use these common/generic assumptions to derive missing distances. > > s/seven/six/ > > I really need to learn how to count.... :-/ > >> >> Cheers, >> -- >> Steve thanks Ganapat -- 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
