On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 09:33:14AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 9:14 AM Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 05:17:49PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
index 7ff800045434..96502ff92af5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c

@@ -117,16 +117,3 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)

      node_set(node, numa_nodes_parsed);
 }
-
-int __init arm64_acpi_numa_init(void)
-{
-     int ret;
-
-     ret = acpi_numa_init();
-     if (ret) {
-             pr_info("Failed to initialise from firmware\n");
-             return ret;
-     }
-
-     return srat_disabled() ? -EINVAL : 0;
-}

I think it's better if arm64_acpi_numa_init() and arm64_numa_init()
remained in the arm64 code. It's not really much code to be shared.

RISC-V will probably support ACPI one day. The idea is to not to do
exercise again in future.
Moreover, there will be arch_numa_init which will be used by RISC-V
and there will be arm64_numa_init
used by arm64. However, if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to
move back those two functions to arm64.

I don't have a strong view on this, only if there's a risk at some point
of the implementations diverging (e.g. quirks). We can revisit it if
that happens.

It may be worth swapping patches 1 and 2 so that you don't have an
arm64_* function in the core code after the first patch (more of a
nitpick). Either way, feel free to add my ack on both patches:

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel