[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190415152741.GA28623@e107155-lin>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:27:41 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitriy Cherkasov <dmitriy@...-tech.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Otto Sabart <ottosabart@...erm.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFT/RFC PATCH v3 3/5] cpu-topology: Move cpu topology code to
common code.
Hi Atish,
Thanks again for doing this. Overall changes look good except a couple
of minor nit, see below.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 04:48:04PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> Both RISC-V & ARM64 are using cpu-map device tree to describe
> their cpu topology. It's better to move the relevant code to
> a common place instead of duplicate code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
> Tested-by: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 23 ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 303 +-----------------------------
> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 298 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> drivers/base/topology.c | 1 +
> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 28 +++
> 5 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 323 deletions(-)
>
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index edfcf8d9..6cc6a860 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
> * Written by: Juri Lelli, ARM Ltd.
> */
>
> -#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/arch_topology.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/cpu.h>
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@
> #include <linux/string.h>
> #include <linux/sched/topology.h>
> #include <linux/cpuset.h>
> +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/smp.h>
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
>
> @@ -278,3 +283,294 @@ static void parsing_done_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> #else
> core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
> #endif
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
Why can't the above one be just GENERIC_ARCH_TOPOLOGY ?
I may be missing to find it myself, but would like to know.
> +
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
Ditto.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists