Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] coresight: Do not default to CPU0 for missing CPU phandle

2019-06-26 Thread Sai Prakash Ranjan
Hi Mathieu, On 6/26/2019 11:11 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: Hi Sai, On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 21:36, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-platform.c b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-platform.c index 3c5ceda8db24..4990da2c13e9 100644 --- a/drivers/hwt

Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] coresight: Do not default to CPU0 for missing CPU phandle

2019-06-26 Thread Mathieu Poirier
Hi Sai, On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 21:36, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > > Coresight platform support assumes that a missing "cpu" phandle > defaults to CPU0. This could be problematic and unnecessarily binds > components to CPU0, where they may not be. Let us make the DT binding > rules a bit stricter

Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] coresight: Do not default to CPU0 for missing CPU phandle

2019-06-24 Thread Sai Prakash Ranjan
On 6/24/2019 1:56 PM, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: Sai, Thanks for getting this done. On 24/06/2019 04:36, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: Coresight platform support assumes that a missing "cpu" phandle defaults to CPU0. This could be problematic and unnecessarily binds components to CPU0, where they may

Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] coresight: Do not default to CPU0 for missing CPU phandle

2019-06-24 Thread Suzuki K Poulose
Sai, Thanks for getting this done. On 24/06/2019 04:36, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: Coresight platform support assumes that a missing "cpu" phandle defaults to CPU0. This could be problematic and unnecessarily binds components to CPU0, where they may not be. Let us make the DT binding rules a bit

[PATCHv3 1/1] coresight: Do not default to CPU0 for missing CPU phandle

2019-06-23 Thread Sai Prakash Ranjan
Coresight platform support assumes that a missing "cpu" phandle defaults to CPU0. This could be problematic and unnecessarily binds components to CPU0, where they may not be. Let us make the DT binding rules a bit stricter by not defaulting to CPU0 for missing "cpu" affinity information. Also in c