Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:35:01 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Cc: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>,
        David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com>, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devel@acpica.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>,
        David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] ACPI NUMA support for ARM64
Message-ID: <20160426133500.GQ27312@arm.com>
References: <1461116439-22991-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>
 <20160425111338.GJ16065@arm.com>
 <571E4A2A.8070908@caviumnetworks.com>
 <571EFD1B.1070609@linaro.org>
 <20160426121547.GL27312@arm.com>
 <571F671D.70401@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <571F671D.70401@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2901
Lines: 65

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:03:25PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/4/26 20:15, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 01:31:07PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>On 2016/4/26 0:47, David Daney wrote:
> >>>On 04/25/2016 04:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:40:25PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> >>>>>From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Based on v16 of device-tree NUMA patch set for arm64 [1],this patch
> >>>>>set introduce the ACPI based configuration to provide NUMA
> >>>>>information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>ACPI 5.1 already introduced NUMA support for ARM64, which can get the
> >>>>>NUMA domain information from SRAT and SLIT table, so parse those two
> >>>>>tables to get mappings from cpu/mem to numa node configuration and
> >>>>>system locality.
> >>>>
> >>>>Whilst I've queued the main NUMA series for arm64, I'd really like to
> >>>>see more movement on the generic header file cleanups that you posted
> >>>>separately:
> >>>>
> >>>>http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456358528-24213-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>FWIW:  Those patches should still apply.  I am carrying them in my
> >>>development trees, and have not changed them in any way.
> >
> >What's your plan for getting them merged?
> 
> This patch set touches lots of ACPI related file in arch/x86,
> arch/ia64, and drivers/acpi/ (also arch/arm64), I think it can be
> merged via ACPI tree by Rafael with your ack to ARM64 code, does
> it make sense?

It doesn't touch anything in drivers/acpi/... are you following the link
above?

> >>>>Given that this ACPI series already requires some significant cross-arch
> >>>>interaction (which is actually good!), perhaps extending the clean-up
> >>>>patches to encompass some of the ACPI bits might make sense, and we can
> >>>>get that queued as a pre-requisite.
> >>>
> >>>The cleanup patches you mention above are really independent of the ACPI
> >>>things.  I have applied them both before and after the ACPI patches, and
> >>>both seem to work.  With a quick perusal of the ACPI patches nothing
> >>>jumps out at me as being a candidate for inclusion in the header file
> >>>cleanup series.
> >>
> >>I agree. My patch set is ACPI related enablement, cleanups and
> >>consolidations, it would be good to merge as a single patch set
> >>as it's self-contained.
> >
> >Up to you. I just thought you might want to avoid having two sets of
> >cross-arch changes and the associated merging headaches that go with
> >that.
> 
> Good point, as I suggested above, it can go with ACPI tree if it's ok
> to you and Rafael. The problem we have now is that dt based core NUMA
> support for ARM64 is queued in your tree, that would be the headache.

Sorry, but if you wanted me *not* to queue the patches, then you should
have said so (similarly, if you wanted a stable branch). I'm not rebasing
our for-next/core branch now.

Will