Hi Will,
On 12/07/18 12:06, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:18:28PM +0800, Shunyong Yang wrote:
[..]
>>
>> And as long as the nodes with Physical package field set in PPTT keeps
>> the real hardware order, the logic id can map to hardware package id to
>> some extent.
>>
>> Hope
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 05:18:28PM +0800, Shunyong Yang wrote:
> As PPTT spec doesn't define the physical package id,
> find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() will return offset of the node with
> Physical package field set when querying physical package id. So, it
> returns 162(0xA2) in following exampl
On 28/06/18 16:44, Yang, Shunyong wrote:
> Hi, All
>
>> On Jun 28, 2018, at 22:51, Andrew Jones
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:09:19PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 28/06/18 14:19, Jeremy Linton wrote: Hi,
On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>> [
Hi, All
> On Jun 28, 2018, at 22:51, Andrew Jones wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:09:19PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 28/06/18 14:19, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
OK sure. I liked the approach i
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:09:19PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 28/06/18 14:19, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>
> >> OK sure. I liked the approach in Shunyong's patch. I was thinking if we
> >> can avoid the list and dyna
On 28/06/18 14:19, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
>>
>> OK sure. I liked the approach in Shunyong's patch. I was thinking if we
>> can avoid the list and dynamic allocation on each addition and make it
>> more simpler.
>>
>
> This one reads s
Hi,
On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 28/06/18 12:57, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:38:24AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
Hi Shunyong,
On 28/06/18 10:18, Shunyong Yang wrote:
As PPTT spec doesn't define the physical package id,
find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() wi
On 28/06/18 12:57, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:38:24AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Hi Shunyong,
>>
>> On 28/06/18 10:18, Shunyong Yang wrote:
>>> As PPTT spec doesn't define the physical package id,
>>> find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() will return offset of the node with
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:38:24AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Shunyong,
>
> On 28/06/18 10:18, Shunyong Yang wrote:
> > As PPTT spec doesn't define the physical package id,
> > find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() will return offset of the node with
> > Physical package field set when querying ph
Hi Shunyong,
On 28/06/18 10:18, Shunyong Yang wrote:
> As PPTT spec doesn't define the physical package id,
> find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() will return offset of the node with
> Physical package field set when querying physical package id. So, it
> returns 162(0xA2) in following example.
>
> [
As PPTT spec doesn't define the physical package id,
find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() will return offset of the node with
Physical package field set when querying physical package id. So, it
returns 162(0xA2) in following example.
[0A2h 0162 1]Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Hierar
11 matches
Mail list logo
