[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1376521050.4255.82.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:57:30 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@....com>
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] DT/core: cpu_ofnode updates for v3.12
On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 14:21 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> IMO moving of handling ibm,ppc-interrupt-server#s to generic code
> under
> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC seems to be cleaner approach than weak definitation.
>
> As per my understanding each thread is a different logical cpu.
> Each logical cpu is mapped to unique physical id(either present in reg
> field or legacy ibm,ppc-interrupt-server#s field). So given a logical
> cpu id we can get the cpu node corresponding to it.
> Looking @ smp_setup_cpu_maps in arch/powerpc/kernel/setup-common.c
> and the comment in the same file: "This implementation only supports
> power of 2 number of threads.." the thread id id is implicit in the
> logical cpu id. Do we need to fetch that from DT ?
I don't want those parsing routines to make those assumptions. We have
changed our logical numbering in the past and may again.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists