Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Jul 2022 12:03:41 +0200 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 2/4] arch-topology: add a default implementation of store_cpu_topology() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 10:47:10AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 11:28:19AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Sudeep, > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 11:22 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 08:35:57AM +0000, Conor.Dooley@microchip.com wrote: > > > > 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 don't want any weak definition and arch to override as we know only > > > arm64 and RISC-V are the only users and they are aligned to have same > > > implementation. So weak definition doesn't make sense to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Ah OK, good. > > > > > > > If you're okay with patch 1/4, I'll resubmit it as a standalone v2. > > > > > > > > > > That would be great, thanks. You can most the code to move to generic from > > > both arm64 and risc-v once we have this in v5.20-rc1 > > > > Why not ignore risc-v for now, and move the arm64 implementation to > > the generic code for v5.20, so every arch will have it at once? > > > > We could but, > 1. This arch_topology is new and has been going through lot of changes > recently and having code there might make it difficult to backport > changes that are required for RISC-V(my guess)
Worry about future issues in the future. Make it simple now as you know what you are dealing with at the moment.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |