On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > I am not sure if we can ever guarantee that DT and ACPI will get the > same ids whatever counter we use as it depends on the order presented in > the firmware(DT or ACPI). So I am not for generating ids for core and > threads in that way.
I don't believe we have to guarantee that the exact (package,core,thread) triplet describing a PE with DT matches ACPI. We just need to guarantee that each triplet we select properly puts a PE in the same group as its peers. So, as long as we keep the grouping described by DT or ACPI, then the (package,core,thread) IDs assigned are pretty arbitrary. I could change the commit message to state we can generate IDs *like* DT does (i.e. with counters), even if they may not result in identical triplet to PE mappings. > > So I would like to keep it simple and just have this counters for > package ids as demonstrated in Shunyong's patch. > If we don't also handle cores when there are threads, then the cores will also end up having weird IDs. Thanks, drew
