On 03/01/2016 08:47 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:26 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/23/2016 11:36 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:13:17PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ADD device tree node parsing for NUMA topology using device
"numa-node-id" property distance-map.
I still want an adequate explanation why NUMA setup cannot be done with
an unflattened tree. PowerPC manages to do that and should have a
similar init flow being memblock based, so I would expect arm64 can too.
Many things could be done. Really, we want to know what *should* be done.
In the context of the current arm64 memory initialization we (more or less)
do:
1) early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem();
2) memory_present()
3) sparse_init()
4) other things
5) unflatten_device_tree()
We are already reading information out of the FDT at #1.
This patch set adds a step between 1 and 2 where we read NUMA information
out of the FDT.
The dependency on unflattening is that memblock is up and we can
allocate a chunk from it. Isn't that dependency met by step 1
No.
or is
there a dependency on sparsemem (or something else)?
Will Deacon talked about this over here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/26/782
I am happy to modify the patch set, but I don't want to get stuck as an
intermediary between two opposing blocs.
David Daney
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
