RFC ARM: introducing DT topology
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 RFC Latest0 of 5 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 5 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [RFC PATCH 0/5] ARM: introducing DT topology
Quoted 8 lines · Russell King - ARM Linux
Quoted 7 lines · Lorenzo Pieralisi
Quoted 6 lines
This sounds like you're saying that the contents of MPIDR might be buggy sometime in the future? Do we actually know of any situations where the information in there is currently wrong (outside of the development lab)? If not, it's not something we should cater for until it's actually happened, and then the pain should be felt by those silly enough to allow the chip to go out the door.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
I share your view Russell. Having said that: MPIDR is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED.
I'll assume you mean that it's left to the implementation to set MPIDR appropriately, and you're expecting implementations to make mistakes with it.
I think what Lorenzo means is that MPIDR is indeed a mandated register with certain bits specified by the ARM ARM. However, the affinity bits are left to the implementation. The ARM ARM makes recommendations and gives some examples but they are not mandatory. An implementer is under no legal obligation to follow the examples. It is not that unlikely that someone in the future may use a different cluster/processor counting scheme than ours. Also in the context of virtualisation, the lower affinity field may be used for virtual CPUs counting).
Signature · 1 line
Catalin