[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4090fbfa-648c-5299-d3db-01efd2ebc62b@microchip.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 16:39:01 +0000
From: <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To: <sudeep.holla@....com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: <mail@...chuod.ie>, <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
<palmer@...belt.com>, <palmer@...osinc.com>,
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <catalin.marinas@....com>,
<will@...nel.org>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<Daire.McNamara@...rochip.com>, <niklas.cassel@....com>,
<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>, <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
<zong.li@...ive.com>, <kernel@...il.dk>, <hahnjo@...njo.de>,
<guoren@...nel.org>, <anup@...infault.org>,
<atishp@...shpatra.org>, <heiko@...ech.de>,
<philipp.tomsich@...ll.eu>, <robh@...nel.org>, <maz@...nel.org>,
<viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arm64: topology: move store_cpu_topology() to
shared code
On 11/07/2022 16:24, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 04:50:38PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 03:35:42PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 09, 2022 at 04:23:54PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>>>
>>>> arm64's method of defining a default cpu topology requires only minimal
>>>> changes to apply to RISC-V also. The current arm64 implementation exits
>>>> early in a uniprocessor configuration by reading MPIDR & claiming that
>>>> uniprocessor can rely on the default values.
>>>>
>>>> This is appears to be a hangover from prior to '3102bc0e6ac7 ("arm64:
>>>> topology: Stop using MPIDR for topology information")', because the
>>>> current code just assigns default values for multiprocessor systems.
>>>>
>>>> With the MPIDR references removed, store_cpu_topolgy() can be moved to
>>>> the common arch_topology code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks good. FWIW,
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>>>
>>>> CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>
>>> However, while I understand the reason why this is needed in stable trees
>>> for RISC-V, I am not sure if we want this for stable tree at-least on arm64.
>>> I leave that part to Greg and Will.
>>
>> Why would it be good for one arch but bad for another?
>
> Not really bad as such. Just needs testing and must not change much ideally,
> but it really depends on which stable trees we will target and what is the
> original state there. As mentioned in the commit, this changed a bit around
> v5.8/9 on arm64 and not sure what kernels RISC-V needs this. There could
> be some surprises on some Andriod platforms but that is something we can
> look at when if and when there are complaints.
>
> I am in general not sure what is the -stable tree rules is such situation and
> hence made the noise so that we are aware that we may need more work than just
> backporting this patch. Also this is just my opinion. If we decide to backport
> esp. to kernels older than the one containing 3102bc0e6ac7, then arm64 may need
> more changes or probably we can pull that commit if that makes it easier. Based
> on what is decided and what are the targeted -stable trees, we can dig deeper.
There's always the option of, for the older kernels, not migrating arm64 at all
and just wrap store_cpu_topo with "if RISCV" rather than "if RISCV || ARM64".
Powered by blists - more mailing lists