From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756226Ab3HPMoz (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:44:55 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:60367 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751702Ab3HPMov convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:44:51 -0400 Message-ID: <520E1EC8.1010001@arm.com> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:44:56 +0100 From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au" , "linux@openrisc.net" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Jonas Bonn , Michal Simek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures References: <1374492747-13879-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-4-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376628563.4255.137.camel@pasglop> <520DE753.8090601@arm.com> <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2013 12:44:47.0048 (UTC) FILETIME=[63C11C80:01CE9A7E] X-MC-Unique: 113081613444900601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16/08/13 13:32, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > >>> Naming is a bit gross. You might want to make it clearer that >>> we are talking about CPU IDs in the device-tree here. >>> >> Any particular preference to the name or just a note is sufficient. >> Also unlike PPC, in ARM we don't set hard processor id value based >> values read from device tree. DT must contain the values matching to the >> hardware ID registers. > > This is exactly the same on ppc. We don't "set" HW values. The > device-tree content matches the HW internals. Some processors have a > "PIR" register as well which contains the HW value, in this case the > device-tree must contain the same value as the PIR on that processor. > Ok, I misread the function 'set_hard_smp_processor_id' function. BTW, you didn't mention if you are OK by just have this clearly documented in the function and/or you have any preference/better name. I will send the next version based on that. I have even compile tested :) now on PPC. Regards, Sudeep From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:44:56 +0100 Message-ID: <520E1EC8.1010001@arm.com> References: <1374492747-13879-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-4-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376628563.4255.137.camel@pasglop> <520DE753.8090601@arm.com> <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:60368 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754473Ab3HPMov convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:44:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au" , "linux@openrisc.net" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Jonas Bonn , Michal Simek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" On 16/08/13 13:32, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > >>> Naming is a bit gross. You might want to make it clearer that >>> we are talking about CPU IDs in the device-tree here. >>> >> Any particular preference to the name or just a note is sufficient. >> Also unlike PPC, in ARM we don't set hard processor id value based >> values read from device tree. DT must contain the values matching to the >> hardware ID registers. > > This is exactly the same on ppc. We don't "set" HW values. The > device-tree content matches the HW internals. Some processors have a > "PIR" register as well which contains the HW value, in this case the > device-tree must contain the same value as the PIR on that processor. > Ok, I misread the function 'set_hard_smp_processor_id' function. BTW, you didn't mention if you are OK by just have this clearly documented in the function and/or you have any preference/better name. I will send the next version based on that. I have even compile tested :) now on PPC. Regards, Sudeep From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com (service87.mimecast.com [91.220.42.44]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279212C027A for ; Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:44:52 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <520E1EC8.1010001@arm.com> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:44:56 +0100 From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures References: <1374492747-13879-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-4-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376628563.4255.137.camel@pasglop> <520DE753.8090601@arm.com> <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Jonas Bonn , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Simek , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Sudeep KarkadaNagesha , "microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au" , "linux@openrisc.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 16/08/13 13:32, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: >=20 >>> Naming is a bit gross. You might want to make it clearer that >>> we are talking about CPU IDs in the device-tree here. >>> >> Any particular preference to the name or just a note is sufficient. >> Also unlike PPC, in ARM we don't set hard processor id value based >> values read from device tree. DT must contain the values matching to the >> hardware ID registers. >=20 > This is exactly the same on ppc. We don't "set" HW values. The > device-tree content matches the HW internals. Some processors have a > "PIR" register as well which contains the HW value, in this case the > device-tree must contain the same value as the PIR on that processor. >=20 Ok, I misread the function 'set_hard_smp_processor_id' function. BTW, you didn't mention if you are OK by just have this clearly documented in the function and/or you have any preference/better name. I will send the next version based on that. I have even compile tested :) now on PPC. Regards, Sudeep From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com (Sudeep KarkadaNagesha) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:44:56 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 3/4] powerpc: refactor of_get_cpu_node to support other architectures In-Reply-To: <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> References: <1374492747-13879-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376586580-5409-4-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com> <1376628563.4255.137.camel@pasglop> <520DE753.8090601@arm.com> <1376656351.25016.2.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: <520E1EC8.1010001@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 16/08/13 13:32, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > >>> Naming is a bit gross. You might want to make it clearer that >>> we are talking about CPU IDs in the device-tree here. >>> >> Any particular preference to the name or just a note is sufficient. >> Also unlike PPC, in ARM we don't set hard processor id value based >> values read from device tree. DT must contain the values matching to the >> hardware ID registers. > > This is exactly the same on ppc. We don't "set" HW values. The > device-tree content matches the HW internals. Some processors have a > "PIR" register as well which contains the HW value, in this case the > device-tree must contain the same value as the PIR on that processor. > Ok, I misread the function 'set_hard_smp_processor_id' function. BTW, you didn't mention if you are OK by just have this clearly documented in the function and/or you have any preference/better name. I will send the next version based on that. I have even compile tested :) now on PPC. Regards, Sudeep