Ping? On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
