On 6/29/2018 9:46 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
If it matters a lot, vendors must use UID for consistency. Since OS doesn't
use those IDs for any particular reason, OS must not care.
That depends. If you look at how topology_logical_packa
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:23:15PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 07:03:34PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:48:15AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> [..]
>
> > >
> > > If you want a human readable socket identifier that matches something
> > > stamped
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 07:03:34PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:48:15AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
[..]
> >
> > If you want a human readable socket identifier that matches something
> > stamped above the socket, that is what SMBIOS is for. Queue discussion about
> > tha
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:48:15AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Just to be clear, there isn't anything (AFAIK) in the ACPI specification
> which dictates what values should comprise the various ACPI id's. They are
> assumed only to be machine readable, which is why it seems some
> implementations
Hi,
On 06/29/2018 10:46 AM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
If it matters a lot, vendors must use UID for consistency. Since OS doesn't
use those IDs for any particular reason, OS must not care.
That depends. If you look at how topology_logica
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:38:49PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:42:27PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:12:00PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 06/28/
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 05:46:08PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[..]
> >
> > How is that different from OS generated one from user's perspective ?
> > Vendors might assign sockets UID and he may help them to replace one.
> > Having so
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> If it matters a lot, vendors must use UID for consistency. Since OS doesn't
> use those IDs for any particular reason, OS must not care.
That depends. If you look at how topology_logical_package_id() is used in
x86 code you'll see it
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:55:39PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:42:27PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:12:00PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 06/28/
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:42:27PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:12:00PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 06/28/2018 11:30 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >I am not sur
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:23:54PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:29:27AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > 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 gu
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:42:27PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:12:00PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 06/28/2018 11:30 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >I am not sur
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:12:00PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 06/28/2018 11:30 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >I am not sure if we can ever guarantee that DT and ACPI will get the
> > >same ids whatever
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:29:27AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:12:00PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/28/2018 11:30 AM, 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 ACP
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
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 w
Hi,
On 06/28/2018 11:30 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 28/06/18 15:51, Andrew Jones wrote:
When booting with devicetree, and the devicetree has the cpu-map
node, the topology IDs that are visible from sysfs are generated
with counters. ACPI, on the other hand, uses ACPI table pointer
offsets, whi
On 28/06/18 15:51, Andrew Jones wrote:
> When booting with devicetree, and the devicetree has the cpu-map
> node, the topology IDs that are visible from sysfs are generated
> with counters. ACPI, on the other hand, uses ACPI table pointer
> offsets, which, while guaranteed to be unique, look a b
When booting with devicetree, and the devicetree has the cpu-map
node, the topology IDs that are visible from sysfs are generated
with counters. ACPI, on the other hand, uses ACPI table pointer
offsets, which, while guaranteed to be unique, look a bit weird.
Instead, we can generate DT identical to
20 matches
Mail list logo
