On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:03:25PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2016/4/26 20:15, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote: > >>>On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>>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. > > > >What's your plan for getting them merged? > > This patch set touches lots of ACPI related file in arch/x86, > arch/ia64, and drivers/acpi/ (also arch/arm64), I think it can be > merged via ACPI tree by Rafael with your ack to ARM64 code, does > it make sense? It doesn't touch anything in drivers/acpi/... are you following the link above? > >>>>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. > > > >Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of > >cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with > >that. > > Good point, as I suggested above, it can go with ACPI tree if it's ok > to you and Rafael. The problem we have now is that dt based core NUMA > support for ARM64 is queued in your tree, that would be the headache. Sorry, but if you wanted me *not* to queue the patches, then you should have said so (similarly, if you wanted a stable branch). I'm not rebasing our for-next/core branch now. Will -- 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
