Hi Will, David,
On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote:
On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi David,
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 [1],this patch
set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA
information.
ACPI 5.1 already introduced NUMA support for ARM64, which can get the
NUMA domain information from SRAT and SLIT table, so parse those two
tables to get mappings from cpu/mem to numa node configuration and
system locality.
Whilst I've queued the main NUMA series for arm64, I'd really like to
see more movement on the generic header file cleanups that you posted
separately:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456358528-24213-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx
FWIW: Those patches should still apply. I am carrying them in my
development trees, and have not changed them in any way.
Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch
interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up
patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can
get that queued as a pre-requisite.
The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI
things. I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and
both seem to work. With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing
jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file
cleanup series.
I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and
consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set
as it's self-contained.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
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
