From: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com,
juri.lelli@arm.com, anup@brainfault.org, palmer@sifive.com,
jeremy.linton@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mick@ics.forth.gr,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:28:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35b92f83-dbbf-fad2-561f-49b0933ffe19@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin>
On 11/20/2018 4:11 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since this
>> series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I
>> can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches
>> cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted.
>>
>
> Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
> it's ACPI only.
It is ACPI only in the production configuration. I suppose we could
hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and
non-trivial.
>
>> What are these intended to apply to?
>>
>
> The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
> I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
> feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
> code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
> part.
>
On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would
also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and
ACPI). I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a
sanity check on actual hardware.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jhugo@codeaurora.org (Jeffrey Hugo)
To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:28:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35b92f83-dbbf-fad2-561f-49b0933ffe19@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin>
On 11/20/2018 4:11 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since this
>> series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I
>> can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches
>> cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted.
>>
>
> Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
> it's ACPI only.
It is ACPI only in the production configuration. I suppose we could
hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and
non-trivial.
>
>> What are these intended to apply to?
>>
>
> The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
> I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
> feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
> code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
> part.
>
On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would
also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and
ACPI). I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a
sanity check on actual hardware.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com, juri.lelli@arm.com, anup@brainfault.org,
palmer@sifive.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
jeremy.linton@arm.com, Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
robh+dt@kernel.org, mick@ics.forth.gr,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:28:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35b92f83-dbbf-fad2-561f-49b0933ffe19@codeaurora.org> (raw)
Message-ID: <20181120152818.zd4Vz2mNt4nHbe95XyH0xaQo9zC7AKqGv9jeonbY3Ko@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin>
On 11/20/2018 4:11 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since this
>> series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I
>> can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches
>> cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted.
>>
>
> Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
> it's ACPI only.
It is ACPI only in the production configuration. I suppose we could
hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and
non-trivial.
>
>> What are these intended to apply to?
>>
>
> The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
> I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
> feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
> code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
> part.
>
On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would
also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and
ACPI). I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a
sanity check on actual hardware.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jhugo@codeaurora.org (Jeffrey Hugo)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:28:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35b92f83-dbbf-fad2-561f-49b0933ffe19@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin>
On 11/20/2018 4:11 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since this
>> series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I
>> can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches
>> cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted.
>>
>
> Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
> it's ACPI only.
It is ACPI only in the production configuration. I suppose we could
hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and
non-trivial.
>
>> What are these intended to apply to?
>>
>
> The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
> I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
> feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
> code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
> part.
>
On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would
also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and
ACPI). I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a
sanity check on actual hardware.
--
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-20 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-09 1:50 [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` [RFC 1/3] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-17 16:32 ` Rob Herring
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:57 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` [RFC 2/3] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` [RFC 3/3] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-09 1:50 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-15 18:31 ` [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-15 18:31 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-15 18:31 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-15 18:31 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-19 17:46 ` Atish Patra
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 11:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo [this message]
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo
2018-11-20 15:28 ` Jeffrey Hugo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=35b92f83-dbbf-fad2-561f-49b0933ffe19@codeaurora.org \
--to=jhugo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mick@ics.forth.gr \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.