Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 2/4] arch-topology: add a default implementation of store_cpu_topology() | Date | Fri, 8 Jul 2022 08:35:57 +0000 |
| |
On 08/07/2022 09:24, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 11:04:35PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: >> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >> >> RISC-V & arm64 both use an almost identical method of filling in >> default vales for arch topology. Create a weakly defined default >> implementation with the intent of migrating both archs to use it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> >> --- >> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/arch_topology.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c >> index 441e14ac33a4..07e84c6ac5c2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c >> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c >> @@ -765,6 +765,25 @@ void update_siblings_masks(unsigned int cpuid) >> } >> } >> >> +void __weak store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
Does using __weak here make sense to you?
> > I prefer to have this as default implementation. So just get the risc-v > one pushed to upstream first(for v5.20) and get all the backports if required. > Next cycle(i.e. v5.21), you can move both RISC-V and arm64. >
Yeah, that was my intention. I meant to label patch 1/4 as "PATCH" and (2,3,4)/4 as RFC but forgot. I talked with Palmer about doing the risc-v impl. and then migrate both on IRC & he seemed happy with it.
If you're okay with patch 1/4, I'll resubmit it as a standalone v2.
Thanks, Conor.
| |