From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thunder.leizhen@huawei.com (Leizhen (ThunderTown)) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:46:00 +0800 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: <55E17F58.5020101@huawei.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015/8/28 22:02, Rob Herring wrote: > +benh > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 05:39:32PM +0100, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >>> DT bindings for numa map for memory, cores and IOs using >>> arm,associativity device node property. >> >> Given this is just a copy of ibm,associativity, I'm not sure I see much >> point in renaming the properties. > > 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. > Hi all, Why not copy the method of ACPI numa? There only three elements should be configured: 1) a cpu belong to which node 2) a memory block belong to which node 3) the distance of each two nodes The devicetree nodes of numa can be like below: / { ... numa-nodes-info { node-name: node-description { mem-ranges = <...>; cpus-list = <...>; }; nodes-distance { distance-list = <...>; }; }; ... }; Sorry, I don't think xxx,associativity is a good method, it's hard to config, and it seems hardware-dependent. Especially, when we want to support memory hot-add, it's too hard. Because xxx,associativity have no obvious information about it. Like powerpc, it use another property: "/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory". I spend almost a whole month to implement of_numa(configured by dt-nodes), base upon my opinion mentioned above. If somebody are interested in it, I can send my patchset to show it. Regards, Thunder.