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;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 0D04B6020B
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Unify CPU topology across ARM64 & RISC-V
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com, juri.lelli@arm.com, anup@brainfault.org,
        palmer@sifive.com, jeremy.linton@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        mick@ics.forth.gr, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
References: <1541728209-3224-1-git-send-email-atish.patra@wdc.com>
 <07d92dd4-f943-47ee-e168-46bfaf4ed755@codeaurora.org>
 <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin>
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <35b92f83-dbbf-fad2-561f-49b0933ffe19@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:28:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181120111146.GA6497@e107155-lin>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 11/20/2018 4:11 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:31:33AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>
>> I was interested in testing these on QDF2400, an ARM64 platform, since this
>> series touches core ARM64 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I
>> can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches
>> cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted.
>>
> 
> Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF2400. I always assumed
> it's ACPI only.

It is ACPI only in the production configuration.  I suppose we could 
hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and 
non-trivial.

> 
>> What are these intended to apply to?
>>
> 
> The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF2400.
> I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial
> feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding
> code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that
> part.
> 

On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would 
also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and 
ACPI).  I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a 
sanity check on actual hardware.

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.