Hi Arnd,
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Thursday 22 January 2015 17:47:13 Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> This seems wrong still: The clusters and cores do not have unique >> numbers. I believe the code will not work correctly, and it won't >> be compliant with the binding from patch 2. >> >> I think the right way here would be to use >> >> arm,associativity = <0 2 47>; >> >> for cpu@20f, and >> >> arm,associativity = <1 3 48>; >> >> for cpu@10000. Your previous version used the numbers from >> the reg property, which should be fine as well if that helps: >> >> >> arm,associativity = <0x0 0x200 0x20f>; >> >> arm,associativity = <0x10000 0x10000 0x10000>; >> >> which should have the same effect as above, as long as the code >> can handle the numbers not being consecutive. >> >> > > Upon further consideration, I think your patch is correct after > all, but let me check again on PowerPC machines. i have removed, board id which was in previous patch, to keep the associativity aligned to mpidr, ie. socket,cluster id and core id. both previous and current mappings holds good for our design. our topology is 2 sockets(aff2=0and 1) , each having 3 clusters(aff1=0to2)and each cluster having 16 cores(aff0:0to15) in associativity property, for our case, only first id(socket id) is mapped to numa, others are mentioned only to describe the topology. > > Arnd thanks Ganapat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
