* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-03-20 12:59 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-03-20 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland
Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r, Mark Brown
From: Mark Brown <broonie-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
make this clear.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index 4aa20e7a424e..1bd5edc225c1 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
-defined within the cpu-map node.
-Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
+be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
+must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
+consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
===========================================
2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-03-20 12:59 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-03-20 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
make this clear.
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index 4aa20e7a424e..1bd5edc225c1 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
-defined within the cpu-map node.
-Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
+be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
+must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
+consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
===========================================
2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
2014-03-20 12:59 ` Mark Brown
@ 2014-03-21 13:32 ` Mark Rutland
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-03-21 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Brown, linux-arm-kernel,
devicetree
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
>
> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
> make this clear.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> index 4aa20e7a424e..1bd5edc225c1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
>
> whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
>
> -The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
> -defined within the cpu-map node.
> -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> +must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
> +consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
s/consider/considered/ (or drop the word entirely?).
Otherwise this looks sane to me, given there are currently no users of
this information relying on partial topology descriptions.
Cheers,
Mark.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-03-21 13:32 ` Mark Rutland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-03-21 13:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
>
> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
> make this clear.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> index 4aa20e7a424e..1bd5edc225c1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
>
> whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
>
> -The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
> -defined within the cpu-map node.
> -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> +must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
> +consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
s/consider/considered/ (or drop the word entirely?).
Otherwise this looks sane to me, given there are currently no users of
this information relying on partial topology descriptions.
Cheers,
Mark.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
2014-03-21 13:32 ` Mark Rutland
@ 2014-03-21 13:39 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-03-21 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Catalin Marinas,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --]
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:32:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> > +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> > +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> > +must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
> > +consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> s/consider/considered/ (or drop the word entirely?).
Yup (that's a preexisting thing in the text that got reflowed).
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-03-21 13:39 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-03-21 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 01:32:02PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:59:34PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> > +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> > +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> > +must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
> > +consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> s/consider/considered/ (or drop the word entirely?).
Yup (that's a preexisting thing in the text that got reflowed).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140321/4da148ef/attachment-0001.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
2014-04-10 23:18 ` Mark Brown
@ 2014-04-11 0:24 ` Rob Herring
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2014-04-11 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland, Catalin Marinas,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r,
linaro-kernel-cunTk1MwBs8s++Sfvej+rw
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>
>> > Patch is ok with me, thanks:
>
>> > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
>
>> Applied for 3.15.
>
> Catalin already sent this to Linus I think unless I got my patches
> confused.
Yes, you're right.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-04-11 0:24 ` Rob Herring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2014-04-11 0:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
>
>> > Patch is ok with me, thanks:
>
>> > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
>
>> Applied for 3.15.
>
> Catalin already sent this to Linus I think unless I got my patches
> confused.
Yes, you're right.
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
2014-04-10 23:01 ` Rob Herring
@ 2014-04-10 23:18 ` Mark Brown
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-04-10 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Herring
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland, Catalin Marinas,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r,
linaro-kernel-cunTk1MwBs8s++Sfvej+rw
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 329 bytes --]
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> > Patch is ok with me, thanks:
> > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
> Applied for 3.15.
Catalin already sent this to Linus I think unless I got my patches
confused.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-04-10 23:18 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-04-10 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:01:31PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> > Patch is ok with me, thanks:
> > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> Applied for 3.15.
Catalin already sent this to Linus I think unless I got my patches
confused.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140411/40e4d3db/attachment.sig>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
2014-03-31 9:30 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2014-04-10 23:01 ` Rob Herring
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2014-04-10 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi
Cc: Mark Brown, Mark Rutland, Catalin Marinas,
devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r,
linaro-kernel-cunTk1MwBs8s++Sfvej+rw, Mark Brown
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:21:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> From: Mark Brown <broonie-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
>> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
>> make this clear.
>>
>> Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
>> final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".
>
> I think the commit log should be reworded, we update the bindings
> because they are incomplete, not because ARMv8 code decided to reject
> topologies that omit CPUs.
>
> Patch is ok with me, thanks:
>
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Applied for 3.15.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-04-10 23:01 ` Rob Herring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2014-04-10 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:21:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>> From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
>>
>> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
>> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
>> make this clear.
>>
>> Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
>> final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".
>
> I think the commit log should be reworded, we update the bindings
> because they are incomplete, not because ARMv8 code decided to reject
> topologies that omit CPUs.
>
> Patch is ok with me, thanks:
>
> Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Applied for 3.15.
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
2014-03-28 14:21 ` Mark Brown
@ 2014-03-31 9:30 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2014-03-31 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Mark Rutland, Catalin Marinas, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r,
linaro-kernel-cunTk1MwBs8s++Sfvej+rw, Mark Brown
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:21:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <broonie-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
>
> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
> make this clear.
>
> Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
> final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".
I think the commit log should be reworded, we update the bindings
because they are incomplete, not because ARMv8 code decided to reject
topologies that omit CPUs.
Patch is ok with me, thanks:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> index 4aa20e7..1061faf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
>
> whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
>
> -The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
> -defined within the cpu-map node.
> -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> +must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
> +invalid and therefore must be ignored.
>
> ===========================================
> 2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-03-31 9:30 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2014-03-31 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:21:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
>
> The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
> clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
> make this clear.
>
> Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
> final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".
I think the commit log should be reworded, we update the bindings
because they are incomplete, not because ARMv8 code decided to reject
topologies that omit CPUs.
Patch is ok with me, thanks:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> index 4aa20e7..1061faf 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
> @@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
>
> whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
>
> -The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
> -defined within the cpu-map node.
> -Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
> +The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
> +be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
> +must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
> +invalid and therefore must be ignored.
>
> ===========================================
> 2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
> --
> 1.9.1
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-03-28 14:21 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-03-28 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Catalin Marinas
Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r,
linaro-kernel-cunTk1MwBs8s++Sfvej+rw, Mark Brown
From: Mark Brown <broonie-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
make this clear.
Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index 4aa20e7..1061faf 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
-defined within the cpu-map node.
-Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
+be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
+must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
+invalid and therefore must be ignored.
===========================================
2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described
@ 2014-03-28 14:21 ` Mark Brown
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2014-03-28 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
From: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
The ARMv8 code will reject topologies that omit some CPUs (and it's not
clear that it's ever sensible to do so). Update the binding document to
make this clear.
Since we're reformatting the text also fix incorrect grammar in the
final "Any other configuration..." section by removing "consider".
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
index 4aa20e7..1061faf 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/topology.txt
@@ -75,9 +75,10 @@ The cpu-map node can only contain three types of child nodes:
whose bindings are described in paragraph 3.
-The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only be
-defined within the cpu-map node.
-Any other configuration is consider invalid and therefore must be ignored.
+The nodes describing the CPU topology (cluster/core/thread) can only
+be defined within the cpu-map node and every core/thread in the system
+must be defined within the topology. Any other configuration is
+invalid and therefore must be ignored.
===========================================
2.1 - cpu-map child nodes naming convention
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-04-11 0:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-03-20 12:59 [PATCH] ARM: topology: Make it clear that all CPUs need to be described Mark Brown
2014-03-20 12:59 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-21 13:32 ` Mark Rutland
2014-03-21 13:32 ` Mark Rutland
[not found] ` <20140321133202.GQ23372-NuALmloUBlrZROr8t4l/smS4ubULX0JqMm0uRHvK7Nw@public.gmane.org>
2014-03-21 13:39 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-21 13:39 ` Mark Brown
2014-03-28 14:21 Mark Brown
2014-03-28 14:21 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <1396016467-23257-1-git-send-email-broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
2014-03-31 9:30 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-03-31 9:30 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
[not found] ` <20140331093046.GA2245-7AyDDHkRsp3ZROr8t4l/smS4ubULX0JqMm0uRHvK7Nw@public.gmane.org>
2014-04-10 23:01 ` Rob Herring
2014-04-10 23:01 ` Rob Herring
[not found] ` <CAL_JsqLj56d6Mb5Vjd4UnBvQ6myAc4j3moY+3EM9zgHxrNgHbw-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2014-04-10 23:18 ` Mark Brown
2014-04-10 23:18 ` Mark Brown
[not found] ` <20140410231808.GJ6518-GFdadSzt00ze9xe1eoZjHA@public.gmane.org>
2014-04-11 0:24 ` Rob Herring
2014-04-11 0:24 ` Rob Herring
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.