<snip>

> >
> > >
> > > Some Arm SoCs are not NUMA systems. Add the capability to disable
> > > NUMA for cross build and disabled NUMA in Arm cross files.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.lin...@pantheon.tech>
> > > ---
> > >  config/arm/arm64_armada_linux_gcc    |  1 +
> > >  config/arm/arm64_armv8_linux_gcc     |  1 +
> > >  config/arm/arm64_bluefield_linux_gcc |  1 +
> > >  config/arm/arm64_dpaa_linux_gcc      |  1 +
> > >  config/arm/arm64_graviton2_linux_gcc |  1 +
> > >  config/arm/arm64_n1sdp_linux_gcc     |  1 +
> > >  config/arm/arm64_octeontx2_linux_gcc |  1 +
> > > config/arm/arm64_stingray_linux_gcc  |  1 +
> > >  config/arm/meson.build               |  2 --
> > >  config/meson.build                   | 19 +++++++++++++------
> > >  10 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/config/arm/arm64_armada_linux_gcc
> > > b/config/arm/arm64_armada_linux_gcc
> > > index 7383f42e2..f5403f0a6 100644
> > > --- a/config/arm/arm64_armada_linux_gcc
> > > +++ b/config/arm/arm64_armada_linux_gcc
> > > @@ -17,4 +17,5 @@ endian = 'little'
> > >  implementer_id = '0x56'
> > >  max_lcores = 16
> > >  max_numa_nodes = 1
> > > +numa = false
> > >  disabled_drivers = ['bus/dpaa', 'bus/fslmc', 'common/dpaax'] diff
> > > --git a/config/arm/arm64_armv8_linux_gcc
> > > b/config/arm/arm64_armv8_linux_gcc
> > > index 245e06e5f..77e3d6278 100644
> > > --- a/config/arm/arm64_armv8_linux_gcc
> > > +++ b/config/arm/arm64_armv8_linux_gcc
> > > @@ -53,5 +53,6 @@ part_number = 'generic'
> > >  max_lcores = 256
> > >  max_numa_nodes = 4
> > >
> > > +# numa = false        # set to false if the target is not a NUMA system
> > Nit, IMO, we can skip these comments in this file and keep it short
> >
> 
> Looking at the original comments in this file, I arrived at the conclusion 
> that
> this is the documentation about what's supported in an arm cross file. We
> should have this documented somewhere and this seemed like the best place.
> It's possible we could mention this in the docs instead. Then the removal of
> these explanatory comments would make sense.
Prefer to document the usage in the docs.

<snip>

Reply via email to