> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > i am thinking, if we could not address(or becomes complex) these topologies
> > using associativity,
> > we should think of an alternate binding which suits existing and upcoming
> > arm64 platforms.
> > can we think of below numa binding which is inline with ACPI and will
> > address all sort of topologies!
> >
> > i am proposing as below,
> >
> > 1. introduce "proximity" node property. this property will be
> > present in dt nodes like memory, cpu, bus and devices(like associativity
> > property) and
> > will tell which numa node(proximity domain) this dt node belongs to.
> >
> > examples:
> > cpu@000 {
> > device_type = "cpu";
> > compatible = "cavium,thunder", "arm,armv8";
> > reg = <0x0 0x000>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > proximity = <0>;
> > };
> > cpu@001 {
> > device_type = "cpu";
> > compatible = "cavium,thunder", "arm,armv8";
> > reg = <0x0 0x001>;
> > enable-method = "psci";
> > proximity = <1>;
> > };
> >
> > memory@00000000 {
> > device_type = "memory";
> > reg = <0x0 0x01400000 0x3 0xFEC00000>;
> > proximity =<0>;
> >
> > };
> >
> > memory@10000000000 {
> > device_type = "memory";
> > reg = <0x100 0x00400000 0x3 0xFFC00000>;
> > proximity =<1>;
> > };
> >
> > pcie0@0x8480,00000000 {
> > compatible = "cavium,thunder-pcie";
> > device_type = "pci";
> > msi-parent = <&its>;
> > bus-range = <0 255>;
> > #size-cells = <2>;
> > #address-cells = <3>;
> > #stream-id-cells = <1>;
> > reg = <0x8480 0x00000000 0 0x10000000>; /*Configuration
> > space */
> > ranges = <0x03000000 0x8010 0x00000000 0x8010 0x00000000
> > 0x70 0x00000000>, /* mem ranges */
> > <0x03000000 0x8300 0x00000000 0x8300 0x00000000
> > 0x500 0x00000000>;
> > proximity =<0>;
> > };
> >
> >
> > 2. Introduce new dt node "proximity-map" which will capture the NxN numa
> > node distance matrix.
> >
> > for example, 4 nodes connected in mesh/ring structure as,
> > A(0) <connected to> B(1) <connected to> C(2) <connected to> D(3) <connected
> > to> A(1)
> >
> > relative distance would be,
> > A -> B = 20
> > B -> C = 20
> > C -> D = 20
> > D -> A = 20
> > A -> C = 40
> > B -> D = 40
> >
> > and dt presentation for this distance matrix is :
> >
> > proximity-map {
> > node-count = <4>;
> > distance-matrix = <0 0 10>,
> > <0 1 20>,
> > <0 2 40>,
> > <0 3 20>,
> > <1 0 20>,
> > <1 1 10>,
> > <1 2 20>,
> > <1 3 40>,
> > <2 0 40>,
> > <2 1 20>,
> > <2 2 10>,
> > <2 3 20>,
> > <3 0 20>,
> > <3 1 40>,
> > <3 2 20>,
> > <3 3 10>;
> > }
> >
> > the entries like < 0 0 > < 1 1> < 2 2> < 3 3> can be optional and code can
> > put default value(local distance).
> > the entries like <1 0> can be optional if <0 1> and <1 0> are of same
> > distance.
> is this binding looks ok?
This looks roughly requivalent to the ACPI SLIT, which means it's as
powerful, which allays my previous concerns.
> i can implement this and submit in next version of patchset.
Please put together (plaintext) patches.
Then we have a sensible baseline that we can work from; it's somewhat
difficult for others to join the disacussion here as-is.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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
