On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:36:35AM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/13/2017 12:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >[+Morten, Dietmar]
> >
> >$SUBJECT should be:
> >
> >arm64: topology: rename cluster_id
>
> Sure..
>
> >
> >On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 04:23:28PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> >>Lets match the name of the arm64 topology field
> >>to the kernel macro that uses it.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 4 ++--
> >> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 27 ++++++++++++++-------------
> >> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
> >>index c4f2d50491eb..118136268f66 100644
> >>--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
> >>+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h
> >>@@ -7,14 +7,14 @@
> >> struct cpu_topology {
> >> int thread_id;
> >> int core_id;
> >>- int cluster_id;
> >>+ int physical_id;
> >
> >package_id ?
>
> Given the macro is topology_physical_package_id, either makes sense to me.
> <shrug> I will change it in the next set.
I would vote for package_id too. arch/arm has 'socket_id' though.
> >
> >It has been debated before, I know. Should we keep the cluster_id too
> >(even if it would be 1:1 mapped to package_id - for now) ?
>
> Well given that this patch replaces the patch that did that at your
> request..
>
> I was hoping someone else would comment here, but my take at this point is
> that it doesn't really matter in a functional sense at the moment.
> Like the chiplet discussion it can be the subject of a future patch along
> with the patches which tweak the scheduler to understand the split.
>
> BTW, given that i'm OoO next week, and the following that are the holidays,
> I don't intend to repost this for a couple weeks. I don't think there are
> any issues with this set.
>
> >
> >There is also arch/arm to take into account, again, this patch is
> >just renaming (as it should have named since the beginning) a
> >topology level but we should consider everything from a legacy
> >perspective.
arch/arm has gone for thread/core/socket for the three topology levels
it supports.
I'm not sure what short term value keeping cluster_id has? Isn't it just
about where we make the package = cluster assignment? Currently it is in
the definition of topology_physical_package_id. If we keep cluster_id
and add package_id, it gets moved into the MPIDR/DT parsing code.
Keeping cluster_id and introducing a topology_cluster_id function could
help cleaning up some of the users of topology_physical_package_id that
currently assumes package_id == cluster_id though.
Morten
--
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
