Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64 | From | Hanjun Guo <> | Date | Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:49:36 +0800 |
| |
Hi Will,
On 2016/4/26 21:35, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:03:25PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> On 2016/4/26 20:15, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote: >>>>> On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote: >>>>>>> From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 [1],this patch >>>>>>> set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA >>>>>>> information. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ACPI 5.1 already introduced NUMA support for ARM64, which can get the >>>>>>> NUMA domain information from SRAT and SLIT table, so parse those two >>>>>>> tables to get mappings from cpu/mem to numa node configuration and >>>>>>> system locality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whilst I've queued the main NUMA series for arm64, I'd really like to >>>>>> see more movement on the generic header file cleanups that you posted >>>>>> separately: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456358528-24213-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> FWIW: Those patches should still apply. I am carrying them in my >>>>> development trees, and have not changed them in any way. >>> >>> What's your plan for getting them merged? >> >> This patch set touches lots of ACPI related file in arch/x86, >> arch/ia64, and drivers/acpi/ (also arch/arm64), I think it can be >> merged via ACPI tree by Rafael with your ack to ARM64 code, does >> it make sense? > > It doesn't touch anything in drivers/acpi/... are you following the link > above?
Sorry, my bad, I though you were talking about this ACPI NUMA support for ARM64 patch set.
> >>>>>> Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch >>>>>> interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up >>>>>> patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can >>>>>> get that queued as a pre-requisite. >>>>> >>>>> The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI >>>>> things. I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and >>>>> both seem to work. With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing >>>>> jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file >>>>> cleanup series. >>>> >>>> I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and >>>> consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set >>>> as it's self-contained. >>> >>> Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of >>> cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with >>> that. >> >> Good point, as I suggested above, it can go with ACPI tree if it's ok >> to you and Rafael. The problem we have now is that dt based core NUMA >> support for ARM64 is queued in your tree, that would be the headache. > > Sorry, but if you wanted me *not* to queue the patches, then you should > have said so (similarly, if you wanted a stable branch). I'm not rebasing > our for-next/core branch now.
I misread the message above, I'm really sorry if I did something offending you, I didn't mean that.
How about this patch set? We only get few comments on it, your comments on it are appreciated.
Thanks Hanjun
| |