[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:00:43 +0000
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>,
Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT
and SLIT
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:30:12PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
[...]
> >How about the following (similar to x86)?
> >
> >----
> > if (!numa_off) {
> >#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> > if (!numa_init(acpi_numa_init))
> > return 0;
> >#endif
> >#ifdef CONFIG_OF_NUMA
> > if (!numa_init(of_numa_init))
> > return 0;
> >#endif
> > }
> >
> > return numa_init(dummy_numa_init);
> >----
> >
> >Pretty straight and nice.
> >
> >Note: The !acpi_disabled check needs to be moved to the beginning of
> >acpi_numa_init(). Variable ret can be removed.
>
> Lorenzo suggested to remove it, Lorenzo, what's your opinion here?
I do not think it is a big deal. OF is not a fall-back for ACPI,
which is what the code above may make us think, either you parse
ACPI or you parse DT.
I will have a look at the complete code to check if we can rewrite
it differently but I would not be too worried about it.
Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists