On 28.01.16 10:48:37, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/1/27 22:18, Robert Richter wrote: > > On 27.01.16 14:15:06, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> Hi Robert, > >> > >> On 2016/1/25 18:26, Robert Richter wrote: > >>> On 23.01.16 17:39:27, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> After the cleanup for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(), > >>>> it can be used for architetures both x86 and arm64, since > >>>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not enabled for arm64, so no > >>>> worry about that. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 42 ------------------------------- > >>>> arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 54 ---------------------------------------- > >>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) > >>> This one reverts acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to the x86 version. > >>> I rather would prefer the arm64 version for the generic code. We could > >>> keep the x86 implementation until x86 maintainers agree to remove them > >>> and use the generic one (implemented in a separate patch). > >>> > >>> Doing so we can move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() from the > >>> beginning to generic code (used for arm64) and have this last patch to > >>> remove the x86 version. > >> I think the x86 version is the generic one, all the flags (ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE and > >> etc) are defined in the ACPI spec, x86 just use all the flags because it support such features. > >> For ARM64, firmware should be careful and represent the true platform configuration to > >> OS, such as on ARM64, we can't set hotpluggable flag as the ARM64 arch don't support > >> memory hot-plug yet (also the firmware don't support it too), if firmware do things right, > >> it will be not worries for the kernel. > > But you are removing all arm64 from your first patches. Why do you > > introduce acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in the beginning to remove > > it in the end again? I esp. like the arm64 version because of its > > direct returns. So I still would like to see generic code for arm64 > > from the beginning. Maybe have a copy of x86 initially and make > > modifications for arm64 to it, or move missing code (hotplug, etc.) > > from x86 to generic and remove x86 arch code with the last patch. > > OK, so that's the logic and ordering of formatting the patch set, it's easy > to fix :) > > I will introduce the generic code for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() > in drivers/acpi/numa.c and mark it as __weak from the beginning, and > move missing code from x86 to generic, then remove x86 one as you > suggested, is that OK? Sounds good to me. Awaiting your updated version. :) Btw, I tested the whole series, so: Tested-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxx> -Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
