Hi Arnd, On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thursday 22 January 2015 17:47:13 Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> >>> This seems wrong still: The clusters and cores do not have unique >>> numbers. I believe the code will not work correctly, and it won't >>> be compliant with the binding from patch 2. >>> >>> I think the right way here would be to use >>> >>> arm,associativity = <0 2 47>; >>> >>> for cpu@20f, and >>> >>> arm,associativity = <1 3 48>; >>> >>> for cpu@10000. Your previous version used the numbers from >>> the reg property, which should be fine as well if that helps: >>> >>> >>> arm,associativity = <0x0 0x200 0x20f>; >>> >>> arm,associativity = <0x10000 0x10000 0x10000>; >>> >>> which should have the same effect as above, as long as the code >>> can handle the numbers not being consecutive. >>> >>> >> >> Upon further consideration, I think your patch is correct after >> all, but let me check again on PowerPC machines. > i have removed, board id which was in previous patch, to keep the > associativity aligned to mpidr, ie. socket,cluster id and core id. > both previous and current mappings holds good for our design. > our topology is 2 sockets(aff2=0and 1) , each having 3 > clusters(aff1=0to2)and each cluster having 16 cores(aff0:0to15) > in associativity property, for our case, only first id(socket id) is > mapped to numa, others are mentioned only to describe the topology. >> >> Arnd any further comments, how we go about these patches? please suggest. > thanks > Ganapat 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
