From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, <lenb@kernel.org>, <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
<arnd@arndb.de>, <olof@lixom.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
wanghuiqiang <wanghuiqiang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add acpi_pptt_get_package_info() API
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:04:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60c79aaa-4c49-71b1-11be-8e41a6bf3c1d@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200128123415.GB36168@bogus>
On 28/01/2020 12:34, Sudeep Holla wrote:
Hi Sudeep,
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 07:14:18PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>> The ACPI PPTT ID structure (see 6.2 spec, section 5.2.29.3) allows the
>> vendor to provide an identifier (or vendor specific part number) for a
>> particular processor hierarchy node structure. That may be a processor
>> identifier for a processor node, or some chip identifier for a processor
>> package node.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, there were plans to deprecate this in favour of the new
> SOC_ID SMCCC API[1]. I am not sure if you or anyone in your company have
> access to UEFI ASWG mantis where you can look for the ECR for the PPTT
> Type 2 deprecation.
I wasn't aware and I can't get access...
Personally I would rather PPTT ID structure have a fixed field
definition in future spec versions, rather than deprecate.
From checking here, nobody has even used it (properly) for processor
package nodes:
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/tree/master/Platform
I understand it's not ideal, but we need to converge,
> please take a look at both before further discussion.
I can only check the SMCCC extension which you pointed me at.
>
> I personally would not prefer to add the support when I know it is getting
> deprecated. I am not sure on kernel community policy on the same.
So I need a generic solution for this, as my userspace tool requires a
generic solution.
>
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> The ID structure table has a number of fields, which are left open to
>> interpretation per implementation. However the spec does provide reference
>> examples of how the fields could be used. As such, just provide the
>> table fields directly in the API, which the caller may interpret (probably
>> as per spec example).
>>
>
> The "open for interpretation" part is why it's not being favoured anymore
> by silicon vendors as OEM/ODMs can override the same.
>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1579876505-113251-6-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/
>>
> Ah, there's already quite a lot of dependency built for this feature :(
Not really. It's only an RFC ATM, and my requirement is a sysfs file to
read the SoC id(s) (under ACPI FW). So I would still expect to be able
to support this from the SMCCC extension method.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>
> [1] https://developer.arm.com/docs/den0028/c
> .
>
Cheers,
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-28 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-28 11:14 [PATCH RFC 0/2] Add basic generic ACPI soc driver John Garry
2020-01-28 11:14 ` [PATCH RFC 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add acpi_pptt_get_package_info() API John Garry
2020-01-28 12:34 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-28 14:04 ` John Garry [this message]
2020-01-28 14:54 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-29 11:03 ` John Garry
2020-01-30 11:23 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-30 16:12 ` John Garry
2020-01-30 17:41 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-31 10:58 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 11:14 ` [PATCH RFC 2/2] soc: Add a basic ACPI generic driver John Garry
2020-01-28 11:56 ` Greg KH
2020-01-28 13:33 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 12:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-28 14:46 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 15:20 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-28 15:59 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 16:17 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-28 17:51 ` Olof Johansson
2020-01-28 18:22 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 19:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-01-28 19:28 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 22:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-01-29 10:27 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 20:06 ` Olof Johansson
2020-01-29 9:58 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 16:56 ` [PATCH RFC 0/2] Add basic generic ACPI soc driver Jeremy Linton
2020-01-28 17:28 ` John Garry
2020-01-28 19:04 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-01-28 20:07 ` John Garry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=60c79aaa-4c49-71b1-11be-8e41a6bf3c1d@huawei.com \
--to=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=wanghuiqiang@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).