All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:04:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7118dc22-ddd6-d224-733c-fbe160bab28f@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190416130916.GA24669@e107155-lin>

On 4/16/19 6:09 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 02:16:43PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> On 4/15/19 8:31 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:05PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>>>> Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to
>>>> represent their cpu toplogies. Since, we are moving the ARM64
>>>> topology to common code to be used by other architectures, we
>>>> can reuse that for ARM32 as well.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 22 +---------------------
>>>>    arch/arm/kernel/topology.c      | 10 +++++-----
>>>>    include/linux/arch_topology.h   | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>    3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> index d4e76e0a..7c850611 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> @@ -36,17 +36,25 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
>>>>    struct cpu_topology {
>>>>    	int thread_id;
>>>>    	int core_id;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
>>>> +	int socket_id;
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I can't find any reason why we need to do this ifdef dance
>>> here, especially for socket_id vs package_id ?
>>
>> I was not sure if we can rename socket_id to package_id from a semantic
>> point of view. If you are okay with it, I will change it to package_id and
>> send a v4.
>>
> 
> Thanks, all make sure to cc linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
> just noticed that's missing and you are asking for testing on ARM
> platforms :)
> 

My bad!! I didn't realize that linux-arm-kernel is not included. Thanks 
for pointing that out.

>> Other's I can understand
>>> as there are new, but I am sure we can find a way and get away with
>>> #ifdefery here completely.
>>>
>> That would be good. Any suggestions on how to do that?
>>
> 
> Do you see any issues having extra structure members for ARM ?
> Something like below seem to compile + boot fine on my 32-bit TC2 with
> proper topology info on top of your series. Of course, more testing is
> better, but I don't see any issue keeping llc_{id,sibling} around for
> ARM eliminating the need for #ifdefs
> 

I thought adding unused members for ARM32 might be unacceptable :).
I will update my v4 with this.

Regards,
Atish
> Let me know if I am missing something.
> 
> -->8
> 
> diff --git i/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c w/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> index 0ddb24c76c17..f2aa942e0cfa 100644
> --- i/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> +++ w/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
>   	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>   		cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
>   
> -		if (cpuid_topo->socket_id != cpu_topo->socket_id)
> +		if (cpuid_topo->package_id != cpu_topo->package_id)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
> @@ -250,12 +250,12 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   			/* core performance interdependency */
>   			cpuid_topo->thread_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
>   			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
> -			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
> +			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
>   		} else {
>   			/* largely independent cores */
>   			cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
> -			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
> +			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
>   		}
>   	} else {
>   		/*
> @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   		 */
>   		cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   		cpuid_topo->core_id = 0;
> -		cpuid_topo->socket_id = -1;
> +		cpuid_topo->package_id = -1;
>   	}
>   
>   	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
> @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   	pr_info("CPU%u: thread %d, cpu %d, socket %d, mpidr %x\n",
>   		cpuid, cpu_topology[cpuid].thread_id,
>   		cpu_topology[cpuid].core_id,
> -		cpu_topology[cpuid].socket_id, mpidr);
> +		cpu_topology[cpuid].package_id, mpidr);
>   }
>   
>   static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
> @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
>   
>   		cpu_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   		cpu_topo->core_id =  -1;
> -		cpu_topo->socket_id = -1;
> +		cpu_topo->package_id = -1;
>   		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling);
>   		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
>   	}
> diff --git i/include/linux/arch_topology.h w/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> index 7c850611986d..8e82389c2bed 100644
> --- i/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> +++ w/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> @@ -36,13 +36,9 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
>   struct cpu_topology {
>   	int thread_id;
>   	int core_id;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> -	int socket_id;
> -#else
>   	int package_id;
>   	int llc_id;
>   	cpumask_t llc_sibling;
> -#endif
>   	cpumask_t thread_sibling;
>   	cpumask_t core_sibling;
>   };
> @@ -50,11 +46,7 @@ struct cpu_topology {
>   #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
>   extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>   
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> -#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].socket_id)
> -#else
>   #define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].package_id)
> -#endif
>   #define topology_core_id(cpu)		(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id)
>   #define topology_core_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)
>   #define topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra (Inte
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:04:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7118dc22-ddd6-d224-733c-fbe160bab28f@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190416130916.GA24669@e107155-lin>

On 4/16/19 6:09 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 02:16:43PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> On 4/15/19 8:31 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:05PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>>>> Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to
>>>> represent their cpu toplogies. Since, we are moving the ARM64
>>>> topology to common code to be used by other architectures, we
>>>> can reuse that for ARM32 as well.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 22 +---------------------
>>>>    arch/arm/kernel/topology.c      | 10 +++++-----
>>>>    include/linux/arch_topology.h   | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>    3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> index d4e76e0a..7c850611 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> @@ -36,17 +36,25 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
>>>>    struct cpu_topology {
>>>>    	int thread_id;
>>>>    	int core_id;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
>>>> +	int socket_id;
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I can't find any reason why we need to do this ifdef dance
>>> here, especially for socket_id vs package_id ?
>>
>> I was not sure if we can rename socket_id to package_id from a semantic
>> point of view. If you are okay with it, I will change it to package_id and
>> send a v4.
>>
> 
> Thanks, all make sure to cc linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
> just noticed that's missing and you are asking for testing on ARM
> platforms :)
> 

My bad!! I didn't realize that linux-arm-kernel is not included. Thanks 
for pointing that out.

>> Other's I can understand
>>> as there are new, but I am sure we can find a way and get away with
>>> #ifdefery here completely.
>>>
>> That would be good. Any suggestions on how to do that?
>>
> 
> Do you see any issues having extra structure members for ARM ?
> Something like below seem to compile + boot fine on my 32-bit TC2 with
> proper topology info on top of your series. Of course, more testing is
> better, but I don't see any issue keeping llc_{id,sibling} around for
> ARM eliminating the need for #ifdefs
> 

I thought adding unused members for ARM32 might be unacceptable :).
I will update my v4 with this.

Regards,
Atish
> Let me know if I am missing something.
> 
> -->8
> 
> diff --git i/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c w/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> index 0ddb24c76c17..f2aa942e0cfa 100644
> --- i/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> +++ w/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
>   	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>   		cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
>   
> -		if (cpuid_topo->socket_id != cpu_topo->socket_id)
> +		if (cpuid_topo->package_id != cpu_topo->package_id)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
> @@ -250,12 +250,12 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   			/* core performance interdependency */
>   			cpuid_topo->thread_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
>   			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
> -			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
> +			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
>   		} else {
>   			/* largely independent cores */
>   			cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
> -			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
> +			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
>   		}
>   	} else {
>   		/*
> @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   		 */
>   		cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   		cpuid_topo->core_id = 0;
> -		cpuid_topo->socket_id = -1;
> +		cpuid_topo->package_id = -1;
>   	}
>   
>   	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
> @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   	pr_info("CPU%u: thread %d, cpu %d, socket %d, mpidr %x\n",
>   		cpuid, cpu_topology[cpuid].thread_id,
>   		cpu_topology[cpuid].core_id,
> -		cpu_topology[cpuid].socket_id, mpidr);
> +		cpu_topology[cpuid].package_id, mpidr);
>   }
>   
>   static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
> @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
>   
>   		cpu_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   		cpu_topo->core_id =  -1;
> -		cpu_topo->socket_id = -1;
> +		cpu_topo->package_id = -1;
>   		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling);
>   		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
>   	}
> diff --git i/include/linux/arch_topology.h w/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> index 7c850611986d..8e82389c2bed 100644
> --- i/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> +++ w/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> @@ -36,13 +36,9 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
>   struct cpu_topology {
>   	int thread_id;
>   	int core_id;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> -	int socket_id;
> -#else
>   	int package_id;
>   	int llc_id;
>   	cpumask_t llc_sibling;
> -#endif
>   	cpumask_t thread_sibling;
>   	cpumask_t core_sibling;
>   };
> @@ -50,11 +46,7 @@ struct cpu_topology {
>   #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
>   extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>   
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> -#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].socket_id)
> -#else
>   #define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].package_id)
> -#endif
>   #define topology_core_id(cpu)		(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id)
>   #define topology_core_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)
>   #define topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@oss-tech.org>,
	Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 12:04:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7118dc22-ddd6-d224-733c-fbe160bab28f@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190416130916.GA24669@e107155-lin>

On 4/16/19 6:09 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 02:16:43PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> On 4/15/19 8:31 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:05PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>>>> Currently, ARM32 and ARM64 uses different data structures to
>>>> represent their cpu toplogies. Since, we are moving the ARM64
>>>> topology to common code to be used by other architectures, we
>>>> can reuse that for ARM32 as well.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 22 +---------------------
>>>>    arch/arm/kernel/topology.c      | 10 +++++-----
>>>>    include/linux/arch_topology.h   | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>    3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/arch_topology.h b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> index d4e76e0a..7c850611 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/arch_topology.h
>>>> @@ -36,17 +36,25 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
>>>>    struct cpu_topology {
>>>>    	int thread_id;
>>>>    	int core_id;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
>>>> +	int socket_id;
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I can't find any reason why we need to do this ifdef dance
>>> here, especially for socket_id vs package_id ?
>>
>> I was not sure if we can rename socket_id to package_id from a semantic
>> point of view. If you are okay with it, I will change it to package_id and
>> send a v4.
>>
> 
> Thanks, all make sure to cc linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
> just noticed that's missing and you are asking for testing on ARM
> platforms :)
> 

My bad!! I didn't realize that linux-arm-kernel is not included. Thanks 
for pointing that out.

>> Other's I can understand
>>> as there are new, but I am sure we can find a way and get away with
>>> #ifdefery here completely.
>>>
>> That would be good. Any suggestions on how to do that?
>>
> 
> Do you see any issues having extra structure members for ARM ?
> Something like below seem to compile + boot fine on my 32-bit TC2 with
> proper topology info on top of your series. Of course, more testing is
> better, but I don't see any issue keeping llc_{id,sibling} around for
> ARM eliminating the need for #ifdefs
> 

I thought adding unused members for ARM32 might be unacceptable :).
I will update my v4 with this.

Regards,
Atish
> Let me know if I am missing something.
> 
> -->8
> 
> diff --git i/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c w/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> index 0ddb24c76c17..f2aa942e0cfa 100644
> --- i/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> +++ w/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid)
>   	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>   		cpu_topo = &cpu_topology[cpu];
>   
> -		if (cpuid_topo->socket_id != cpu_topo->socket_id)
> +		if (cpuid_topo->package_id != cpu_topo->package_id)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		cpumask_set_cpu(cpuid, &cpu_topo->core_sibling);
> @@ -250,12 +250,12 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   			/* core performance interdependency */
>   			cpuid_topo->thread_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
>   			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
> -			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
> +			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 2);
>   		} else {
>   			/* largely independent cores */
>   			cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   			cpuid_topo->core_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 0);
> -			cpuid_topo->socket_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
> +			cpuid_topo->package_id = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
>   		}
>   	} else {
>   		/*
> @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   		 */
>   		cpuid_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   		cpuid_topo->core_id = 0;
> -		cpuid_topo->socket_id = -1;
> +		cpuid_topo->package_id = -1;
>   	}
>   
>   	update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
> @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
>   	pr_info("CPU%u: thread %d, cpu %d, socket %d, mpidr %x\n",
>   		cpuid, cpu_topology[cpuid].thread_id,
>   		cpu_topology[cpuid].core_id,
> -		cpu_topology[cpuid].socket_id, mpidr);
> +		cpu_topology[cpuid].package_id, mpidr);
>   }
>   
>   static inline int cpu_corepower_flags(void)
> @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
>   
>   		cpu_topo->thread_id = -1;
>   		cpu_topo->core_id =  -1;
> -		cpu_topo->socket_id = -1;
> +		cpu_topo->package_id = -1;
>   		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->core_sibling);
>   		cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
>   	}
> diff --git i/include/linux/arch_topology.h w/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> index 7c850611986d..8e82389c2bed 100644
> --- i/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> +++ w/include/linux/arch_topology.h
> @@ -36,13 +36,9 @@ unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(int cpu)
>   struct cpu_topology {
>   	int thread_id;
>   	int core_id;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> -	int socket_id;
> -#else
>   	int package_id;
>   	int llc_id;
>   	cpumask_t llc_sibling;
> -#endif
>   	cpumask_t thread_sibling;
>   	cpumask_t core_sibling;
>   };
> @@ -50,11 +46,7 @@ struct cpu_topology {
>   #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY
>   extern struct cpu_topology cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>   
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> -#define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].socket_id)
> -#else
>   #define topology_physical_package_id(cpu)	(cpu_topology[cpu].package_id)
> -#endif
>   #define topology_core_id(cpu)		(cpu_topology[cpu].core_id)
>   #define topology_core_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling)
>   #define topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)	(&cpu_topology[cpu].thread_sibling)
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-16 19:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-20 23:48 [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 0/5] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 1/5] Documentation: DT: arm: add support for sockets defining package boundaries Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 2/5] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-03-24 21:16   ` Rob Herring
2019-03-24 21:16     ` Rob Herring
2019-03-24 21:16     ` Rob Herring
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 3/5] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to common code Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-04-15 15:27   ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 15:27     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 15:27     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 22:08     ` Atish Patra
2019-04-15 22:08       ` Atish Patra
2019-04-15 22:08       ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 13:23       ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 13:23         ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 13:23         ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 18:54         ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 18:54           ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 18:54           ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 4/5] arm: Use common cpu_topology Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-04-15 15:31   ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 15:31     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 15:31     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-15 21:16     ` Atish Patra
2019-04-15 21:16       ` Atish Patra
2019-04-15 21:16       ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 13:09       ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 13:09         ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 13:09         ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-16 19:04         ` Atish Patra [this message]
2019-04-16 19:04           ` Atish Patra
2019-04-16 19:04           ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 5/5] RISC-V: Parse cpu topology during boot Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-03-20 23:48   ` Atish Patra
2019-04-10 22:49 ` [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 0/5] Unify CPU topology across ARM & RISC-V Atish Patra
2019-04-10 22:49   ` Atish Patra
2019-04-10 22:49   ` Atish Patra
2019-04-12 17:27   ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-12 17:27     ` Sudeep Holla
2019-04-12 17:27     ` Sudeep Holla

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=7118dc22-ddd6-d224-733c-fbe160bab28f@wdc.com \
    --to=atish.patra@wdc.com \
    --cc=anup@brainfault.org \
    --cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dmitriy@oss-tech.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
    --cc=johan@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=ottosabart@seberm.com \
    --cc=palmer@sifive.com \
    --cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@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.