Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding.

From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra \(Intel\)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
	"linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Otto Sabart <ottosabart@seberm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] dt-binding: cpu-topology: Move cpu-map to a common binding.
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:05:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190603090531.GA26487@e107155-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28118149-193d-2a8a-995a-2f1829e95c1c@wdc.com>

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 01:49:13AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> On 5/30/19 1:55 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 5/29/19 4:13 PM, Atish Patra wrote:
> > > cpu-map binding can be used to described cpu topology for both
> > > RISC-V & ARM. It makes more sense to move the binding to document
> > > to a common place.
> > >
> > > The relevant discussion can be found here.
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/6/19
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > >    .../topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt}     | 82 +++++++++++++++----
> > >    1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >    rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/{arm/topology.txt => cpu/cpu-topology.txt} (86%)
> > >

[...]

> > <nit picking>
> >
> > While socket is optional, its probably a good idea to include the node
> > in the example even if the result is the same.
>
> Sure. I will update that.
>
> That is because at least
> > on arm64 the DT clusters=sockets decision had performance implications
> > for larger systems.
> >
> > Assuring the socket information is correct is helpful by itself to avoid
> > having to explain why a single socket machine is displaying some other
> > value in lscpu.
> >
> Just for my understanding, can you give a example?
>

That's simple. Today any ARM{32,64} DT based platform sets their cluster
id to physical package id, which is exposed to userspace. The userspace
can/must interpret that as multi-socket system. E.g. TC2/Juno which
2 clusters show up as 2 socket systems which is wrong and needs fixing.
We have fixed it for ARM64 ACPI based systems but for DT(mostly used in
mobile/embedded) we need to make sure we don't break anything else before
we fix it.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

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