On Monday 24 November 2014 11:32:46 Roy Franz wrote: > > > > I don't know how much history is behind this binding. Have you looked > > at the sPAPR way of doing this? I don't remember exactly how that is > > done, but we'd need a good reason to discard that and implement > > something else for arm64. > > > > If we create a new binding, I don't think the 'numa-map' node you > > have here is the best solution. We already have device nodes for each > > memory segment and each CPU in the system. Why not work with those > > nodes directly? > > The DT memory nodes don't exist in an EFI system, as the EFI memory > map is used instead. > Using EFI as the boot firmware doesn't require the use of ACPI for > hardware description, > so the EFI/DT case is one that we should support. But they /could/ exist, right? Can we just require them to be present in order to use NUMA features? I don't think it's a good idea to require a new representation of the memory nodes in DT to make NUMA work when we already have one that is almost always there. Arnd -- 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
