Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:29:27 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jeremy.linton@arm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
        shunyong.yang@hxt-semitech.com, yu.zheng@hxt-semitech.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: acpi: reenumerate topology ids
Message-ID: <20180629102927.GA18043@e107155-lin>
References: <20180628145128.10057-1-drjones@redhat.com>
 <a38fb684-c023-1a96-464e-dd268f3132ea@arm.com>
 <20180628173243.obydzakh2stfs26w@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180628173243.obydzakh2stfs26w@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 07:32:43PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> 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.
>

If that's the requirement, we already do that. The IDs are just too
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.
>

Why we need to make it *like DT* ?

> >
> > 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.
>

Yes, but if PPTT says it has valid ID, I would prefer that over DT like
generated.

--
Regards,
Sudeep