On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:33:14AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:14 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:17:49PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > index 7ff800045434..96502ff92af5 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> > > @@ -117,16 +117,3 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
> > >
> > > node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
> > > }
> > > -
> > > -int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
> > > -{
> > > - int ret;
> > > -
> > > - ret = acpi_numa_init();
> > > - if (ret) {
> > > - pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
> > > - return ret;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
> > > -}
> >
> > I think it's better if arm64_acpi_numa_init() and arm64_numa_init()
> > remained in the arm64 code. It's not really much code to be shared.
>
> RISC-V will probably support ACPI one day. The idea is to not to do
> exercise again in future.
> Moreover, there will be arch_numa_init which will be used by RISC-V
> and there will be arm64_numa_init
> used by arm64. However, if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to
> move back those two functions to arm64.
I don't have a strong view on this, only if there's a risk at some point
of the implementations diverging (e.g. quirks). We can revisit it if
that happens.
It may be worth swapping patches 1 and 2 so that you don't have an
arm64_* function in the core code after the first patch (more of a
nitpick). Either way, feel free to add my ack on both patches:
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
