On Wednesday 26 November 2014 10:29:01 Shannon Zhao wrote: > On 2014/11/25 19:02, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > No, don't hardcode ARM specifics into a common binding either. I've looked > > at the ibm,associativity properties again, and I think we should just use > > those, they can cover all cases and are completely independent of the > > architecture. We should probably discuss about the property name though, > > as using the "ibm," prefix might not be the best idea. > > > > Yeah, I have read the relevant codes in qemu. I think the "ibm,associativity" is more scalable:-) Ok > About the prefix, my opinion is that as this is relevant with NUMA, > maybe we can use "numa" as the prefix. A prefix should really be the name of a company or institution, so it could be "arm" or "linux", but not "numa". Would could use "numa-associativity" with a dash instead of a comma, but that would still be somewhat imprecise because the associativity property is about system topology inside of a NUMA domain as well, such as cores, core clusters or SMT threads that only share caches but not physical memory addresses. 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
