[RFC PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: arm64/arm: dt bindings for numa.

On Wednesday 26 November 2014 10:29:01 Shannon Zhao wrote:

On 2014/11/25 19:02, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

No, don't hardcode ARM specifics into a common binding either. I've looked
at the ibm,associativity properties again, and I think we should just use
those, they can cover all cases and are completely independent of the
architecture. We should probably discuss about the property name though,
as using the "ibm," prefix might not be the best idea.

Yeah, I have read the relevant codes in qemu. I think the "ibm,associativity" is more scalable:-)

Ok

About the prefix, my opinion is that as this is relevant with NUMA,
maybe we can use "numa" as the prefix.

A prefix should really be the name of a company or institution, so it could
be "arm" or "linux", but not "numa". Would could use "numa-associativity"
with a dash instead of a comma, but that would still be somewhat imprecise
because the associativity property is about system topology inside of
a NUMA domain as well, such as cores, core clusters or SMT threads that
only share caches but not physical memory addresses.

	Arnd