Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:55:41 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Darren Hart <darren@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Arm <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>,
        "D . Scott Phillips" <scott@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] topology: make core_mask include at least
 cluster_siblings
Message-ID: <YjIIfS6HkvlrdAHS@bogus>
References: <20220308103012.GA31267@willie-the-truck>
 <CAKfTPtDe+i0fwV10m2sX2xkJGBrO8B+RQogDDij8ioJAT5+wAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e91bcc83-37c8-dcca-e088-8b3fcd737b2c@arm.com>
 <YieXQD7uG0+R5QBq@fedora>
 <7ac47c67-0b5e-5caa-20bb-a0100a0cb78f@arm.com>
 <YijxUAuufpBKLtwy@fedora>
 <9398d7ad-30e7-890a-3e18-c3011c383585@arm.com>
 <Yi9zUuroS1vHWexY@fedora>
 <eb33745a-9d63-89b1-1245-9d1e0e04a169@arm.com>
 <YjIAQKwfa3/vr/kU@fedora>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YjIAQKwfa3/vr/kU@fedora>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 08:20:32AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 03:48:50PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:

[...]

> >
> > Yeah, I can see your point. It's the smaller hack. My solution just
> > prevents us to manipulate the coregroup mask only to get the MC layer
> > degenerated by the core topology code. But people might say that's a
> > clever thing to do here. So I'm fine with your original solution as well.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Thanks Dietmar,
>
> Sudeep, do we have sufficient consensus to pull in this patch?

Indeed. I have already Acked, and sure after all these discussions we have
concluded that this is the best we can do though not matches everyone's taste.

Greg or Will(not sure why he had asked since v3 doesn't touch arm64),
Can one of you pick this patch ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep