[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181102133100.GA13130@e107155-lin>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:31:00 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Damien.LeMoal@....com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, alankao@...estech.com,
Zong Li <zong@...estech.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: topology: Add RISC-V cpu topology.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:09:39AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:04 PM Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Define a RISC-V cpu topology. This is based on cpu-map in ARM world.
> > But it doesn't need a separate thread node for defining SMT systems.
> > Multiple cpu phandle properties can be parsed to identify the sibling
> > hardware threads. Moreover, we do not have cluster concept in RISC-V.
> > So package is a better word choice than cluster for RISC-V.
>
> There was a proposal to add package info for ARM recently. Not sure
> what happened to that, but we don't need 2 different ways.
>
We still need that, I can brush it up and post what Lorenzo had previously
proposed[1]. We want to keep both DT and ACPI CPU topology story aligned.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=151817774202854&w=2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists