Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT

From	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT
Date	2016-02-02 18:00 +0100
Message-ID	<qXMt5-5Rl-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qU2Zr-K2-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qU2Zs-K2-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <qXreW-6Nz-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qXHtn-27w-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:30:12PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]

> >How about the following (similar to x86)?
> >
> >----
> >	if (!numa_off) {
> >#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> >		if (!numa_init(acpi_numa_init))
> >			return 0;
> >#endif
> >#ifdef CONFIG_OF_NUMA
> >		if (!numa_init(of_numa_init))
> >			return 0;
> >#endif
> >	}
> >
> >	return numa_init(dummy_numa_init);
> >----
> >
> >Pretty straight and nice.
> >
> >Note: The !acpi_disabled check needs to be moved to the beginning of
> >acpi_numa_init(). Variable ret can be removed.
> 
> Lorenzo suggested to remove it, Lorenzo, what's your opinion here?

I do not think it is a big deal. OF is not a fall-back for ACPI,
which is what the code above may make us think, either you parse
ACPI or you parse DT.

I will have a look at the complete code to check if we can rewrite
it differently but I would not be too worried about it.

Lorenzo

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT  and SLIT Robert Richter <robert.richter@caviumnetworks.com> - 2016-02-01 19:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT  and SLIT Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> - 2016-02-02 12:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT  and SLIT Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> - 2016-02-02 18:00 +0100

csiph-web