diff --git a/docs/specs/ppc-spapr-numa.rst b/docs/specs/ppc-spapr-numa.rst
index e762038022..994bfb996f 100644
--- a/docs/specs/ppc-spapr-numa.rst
+++ b/docs/specs/ppc-spapr-numa.rst
@@ -189,3 +189,216 @@ QEMU up to 5.1, as follows:
 
 This also means that user input in QEMU command line does not change the
 NUMA distancing inside the guest for the pseries machine.
+
+New NUMA mechanics for pseries in QEMU 5.2
+==========================================
+
+Starting in QEMU 5.2, the pseries machine now considers user input when
+setting NUMA topology of the guest. The following changes were made:
+
+* ibm,associativity-reference-points was changed to {0x4, 0x3, 0x2, 0x1}, allowing
+  for 4 distinct NUMA distance values based on the NUMA levels
+
+* ibm,max-associativity-domains was changed to support multiple associativity
+  domains in all NUMA levels. This is needed to ensure user flexibility
+
+* ibm,associativity for all resources now varies with user input
+
+These changes are only effective for pseries-5.2 and newer machines that are
+created with more than one NUMA node (disconsidering NUMA nodes created by
+the machine itself, e.g. NVLink 2 GPUs). The now legacy support has been
+around for such a long time, with users seeing NUMA distances 10 and 40
+(and 80 if using NVLink2 GPUs), and there is no need to disrupt the
+existing experience of those guests.
+
+To bring the user experience x86 users have when tuning up NUMA, we had
+to operate under the current pseries Linux kernel logic described in
+`How the pseries Linux guest calculates NUMA distances`_. The result
+is that we needed to translate NUMA distance user input to pseries
+Linux kernel input.
+
+Translating user distance to kernel distance
+--------------------------------------------
+
+User input for NUMA distance can vary from 10 to 254. We need to translate
+that to the values that the Linux kernel operates on (10, 20, 40, 80, 160).
+This is how it is being done:
+
+* user distance 11 to 30 will be interpreted as 20
+* user distance 31 to 60 will be interpreted as 40
+* user distance 61 to 120 will be interpreted as 80
+* user distance 121 and beyond will be interpreted as 160
+* user distance 10 stays 10
+
+The reasoning behind this aproximation is to avoid any round up to the local
+distance (10), keeping it exclusive to the 4th NUMA level (which is still
+exclusive to the node_id). All other ranges were chosen under the developer
+discretion of what would be (somewhat) sensible considering the user input.
+Any other strategy can be used here, but in the end the reality is that we'll
+have to accept that a large array of values will be translated to the same
+NUMA topology in the guest, e.g. this user input:
+
+::
+
+      0   1   2
+  0  10  31 120
+  1  31  10  30
+  2 120  30  10
+
+And this other user input:
+
+::
+
+      0   1   2
+  0  10  60  61
+  1  60  10  11
+  2  61  11  10
+
+Will both be translated to the same values internally:
+
+::
+
+      0   1   2
+  0  10  40  80
+  1  40  10  20
+  2  80  20  10
+
+Users are encouraged to use only the kernel values in the NUMA definition to
+avoid being taken by surprise with that the guest is actually seeing in the
+topology. There are enough potential surprises that are inherent to the
+associativity domain assignment process, discussed below.
+
+
+How associativity domains are assigned
+--------------------------------------
+
+LOPAPR allows more than one associativity array (or 'string') per allocated
+resource. This would be used to represent that the resource has multiple
+connections with the board, and then the operational system, when deciding
+NUMA distancing, should consider the associativity information that provides
+the shortest distance.
+
+The spapr implementation does not support multiple associativity arrays per
+resource, neither does the pseries Linux kernel. We'll have to represent the
+NUMA topology using one associativity per resource, which means that choices
+and compromises are going to be made.
+
+Consider the following NUMA topology entered by user input:
+
+::
+
+      0   1   2   3
+  0  10  20  20  40
+  1  20  10  80  40
+  2  20  80  10  20
+  3  40  40  20  10
+
+Honoring just the relative distances of node 0 to every other node, one possible
+value for all associativity arrays would be:
+
+* node 0: 0 B A 0
+* node 1: 0 0 A 1
+* node 2: 0 0 A 2
+* node 3: 0 B 0 3
+
+With the reference points {0x4, 0x3, 0x2, 0x1}, for node 0:
+
+* distance from 0 to 1 is 20 (no match at 0x4, will match at 0x3)
+* distance from 0 to 2 is 20 (no match at 0x4, will match at 0x3)
+* distance from 0 to 3 is 40 (no match at 0x4 and 0x3, will match
+  at 0x2)
+
+The distances related to node 0 are well represented. Doing for node 1, and keeping
+in mind that we don't need to revisit node 0 again, the distance from node 1 to
+2 is 80, matching at 0x4:
+
+* node 1: C 0 A 1
+* node 2: C 0 A 2
+
+Over here we already have the first conflict. Even if we assign a new associativity
+domain at 0x4 for 1 and 2, and we do that in the code, the kernel will define
+the distance between 1 and 2 as 20, not 80, because both 1 and 2 have the "A"
+associativity domain from the previous step. If we decide to discard the
+associativity with "A" then the node 0 distances are compromised.
+
+Following up with the distance from 1 to 3 being 40 (a match in 0x2) we have another
+decision to make. These are the current associativity domains of each:
+
+* node 1: C 0 A 1
+* node 3: 0 B 0 3
+
+There is already an associativity domain at 0x2 in node 3, "B", which was assigned
+by the node 0 distances. If we define a new associativity domain at this level
+for 1 and 3 we will overwrite the existing associativity between 0 and 3. What
+the code is doing in this case is to assign the existing domain to the
+current associativity, in this case, "B" is now assigned to the 0x2 of node 1,
+resulting in the following associativity arrays:
+
+* node 0: 0 B A 0
+* node 1: C 0 A 1
+* node 2: C B A 2
+* node 3: 0 B 0 3
+
+In the last step we will analyze just nodes 2 and 3. The desired distance between
+2 and 3 is 20, i.e. a match in 0x3. Node 2 already has a domain assigned in 0x3,
+A, so we do the same as we did in the previous case and assign it to node 3
+at 0x3. This is the end result for the associativity arrays:
+
+* node 0: 0 B A 0
+* node 1: C 0 A 1
+* node 2: C B A 2
+* node 3: 0 B A 3
+
+The kernel will read these arrays and will calculate the following NUMA topology for
+the guest:
+
+::
+
+      0   1   2   3
+  0  10  20  20  20
+  1  20  10  20  20
+  2  20  20  10  20
+  3  20  20  20  10
+
+Which is not what the user wanted, but it is what the current logic and implementation
+constraints of the kernel and QEMU will provide inside the LOPAPR specification.
+
+Changing a single value, specially a low distance value, makes for drastic changes
+in the result. For example, with the same user input from above, but changing the
+node distance from 0 to 1 to 40:
+
+::
+
+      0   1   2   3
+  0  10  40  20  40
+  1  40  10  80  40
+  2  20  80  10  20
+  3  40  40  20  10
+
+This is the result inside the guest, applying the same heuristics:
+
+::
+
+  $ numactl -H
+  available: 4 nodes (0-3)
+  (...)
+  node distances:
+  node   0   1   2   3
+    0:  10  40  20  20
+    1:  40  10  80  40
+    2:  20  80  10  20
+    3:  20  40  20  10
+
+This result is much closer to the user input and only a single distance was changed
+from the original.
+
+The kernel will always match with the shortest associativity domain possible, and we're
+attempting to retain the previous established relations between the nodes. This means
+that a distance equal to 20 between nodes A and B and the same distance 20 between nodes
+A and F will cause the distance between B and F to also be 20. The same will happen to
+other distances, but shorter distances has precedent over it to the distance calculation.
+
+Users are welcome to use this knowledge and experiment with the input to get the
+NUMA topology they want, or as closer as they want. The important thing is to keep
+expectations up to par with what we are capable of provide at this moment: an
+approximation.
