Re: [PATCH 1/1] of: to support binding numa node to root subnode(non-bus)
From: Leizhen (ThunderTown)
Date: Mon Aug 24 2015 - 22:28:55 EST
On 2015/8/24 21:25, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If use of_platform_populate to scan dt-nodes and add devices, the
>> subnode of root(such as /smmu), when being scanned and invoke
> You should have a bus as the sub-node of root rather than devices
> directly off of root. You still have a problem though...
But actually the parent of bus is also &platform_bus if we didn't have special initialization.
The function of_platform_device_create_pdata invoke of_device_alloc first, then invoke of_device_add.
But in of_device_alloc, we can find that:
dev->dev.parent = parent ? : &platform_bus;
>> of_device_add, the ofdev->dev.parent is always equal &platform_bus. So
>> that, function set_dev_node will not be called. And in device_add,
>> dev_to_node(parent) always return NUMA_NO_NODE.
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> drivers/base/core.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/of/device.c | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
>> index dafae6d..5df4f46b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>> @@ -1017,7 +1017,7 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev)
>> dev->kobj.parent = kobj;
>> /* use parent numa_node */
>> - if (parent)
>> + if (parent && (parent != &platform_bus))
> This is only fixing one specific case, but I think things are broken
> for any case where the NUMA associativity if not set at the top level
> bus node. I think this should be something like:
> if (parent && (dev_to_node(dev) != NO_NUMA_NODE))
It seems a mistake, we should use equal sign.
if (parent && (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE))
> Then the OF code can set the node however it wants.
OK. I will send patch v2 base upon your advice. Thank you.
>> set_dev_node(dev, dev_to_node(parent));
>> /* first, register with generic layer. */
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/device.c b/drivers/of/device.c
>> index 8b91ea2..96ebece 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/device.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/device.c
>> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ int of_device_add(struct platform_device *ofdev)
>> /* device_add will assume that this device is on the same node as
>> * the parent. If there is no parent defined, set the node
>> * explicitly */
>> - if (!ofdev->dev.parent)
>> + if (!ofdev->dev.parent || (ofdev->dev.parent == &platform_bus))
> And then remove the if here.
OK. I also think remove this statement will be better. Althouth set_dev_node maybe called two times,
but it only spends very little time, and this almost happened at initialization phase.
>> set_dev_node(&ofdev->dev, of_node_to_nid(ofdev->dev.of_node));
>> return device_add(&ofdev->dev);
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/