lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64
On 04/26/2016 06:35 AM, 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:
[...]
>>>>>> 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 am quite happy with the fact that you put the base device-tree based
NUMA patches on for-next/core.

There is only a very small adjustment to those in the ACPI-NUMA patches
([PATCH v5 06/14] arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()), so I think we
are fine as far as that goes.

My plan is to post a v6 later today that adjusts some of the messages
printed out and adds some Reviewed-by and Acked-by that were accumulated.

David.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-26 19:01    [W:0.067 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site