From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: benh@kernel.crashing.org (Benjamin Herrenschmidt) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:37:36 +1000 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/4] Documentation: arm64/arm: dt bindings for numa. In-Reply-To: References: <1439570374-4079-1-git-send-email-gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com> <1439570374-4079-3-git-send-email-gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com> <20150828123228.GE31748@leverpostej> Message-ID: <1440797856.2912.239.camel@kernel.crashing.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 09:02 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > So just keep the ibm? I'm okay with that. That would help move to > common code. Alternatively, we could drop the vendor prefix and have > common code just check for both. That wouldn't be the first time we go down that path and it makes sense imho. > All points that could be asked of the IBM binding. Perhaps Arnd or > Ben can provide some insight or know who can? They are part of the PAPR specification which we've been trying to get published for a while now but that hasn't happened yet. Beware that there are variants of the format based on some other property. There's also "ibm,associativity-reference-points" which is used to calculate distances. I'll see if I can get you an excerpt of the PAPR chapter, or reword it, in the next few days (please poke me if I drop the ball next week). Cheers, Ben.