On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi David,
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
>> From: David Daney <david.daney(a)cavium.com>
>> Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 ,this patch
>> set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA
>> 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
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
FWIW: Those patches should still apply. I am carrying them in my
development trees, and have not changed them in any way.
> 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
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.