On 2015/8/28 22:02, Rob Herring wrote:
> +benh
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 05:39:32PM +0100, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>> DT bindings for numa map for memory, cores and IOs using
>>> arm,associativity device node property.
>>
>> Given this is just a copy of ibm,associativity, I'm not sure I see much
>> point in renaming the properties.
>
> So just keep the ibm? I'm okay with that. That would help move to
> common code. Alternatively, we could drop the vendor prefix and have
> common code just check for both.
>
Hi all,
Why not copy the method of ACPI numa? There only three elements should be configured:
1) a cpu belong to which node
2) a memory block belong to which node
3) the distance of each two nodes
The devicetree nodes of numa can be like below:
/ {
...
numa-nodes-info {
node-name: node-description {
mem-ranges = <...>;
cpus-list = <...>;
};
nodes-distance {
distance-list = <...>;
};
};
...
};
Sorry, I don't think xxx,associativity is a good method, it's hard to config, and it
seems hardware-dependent. Especially, when we want to support memory hot-add, it's too hard.
Because xxx,associativity have no obvious information about it. Like powerpc, it use another
property: "/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory".
I spend almost a whole month to implement of_numa(configured by dt-nodes), base upon my opinion
mentioned above. If somebody are interested in it, I can send my patchset to show it.
Regards,
Thunder.
--
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
