On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 06:15:11PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:12:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
This would leave the MPIDR support worse than DT which seems retrograde especially given that it's so simple to differentiate the clusters. The only issue with that appears to be about precisely how to make up the cluster numbers which is a cosmetic one.
That's the reason why I said you should not bother. If you want to use 4 affinity levels, I do not see the point in using the hash for that though, since all we need is a unique id which can be easily created without resorting to hashing.
Right, OK. I personally wouldn't have used anything non-trivial either but equally well I didn't see any strong reason not to do it either and it's what Zi Shen sent. I suspect this is based on the review comments the first time around.