From: abner.chang@hpe.com (Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)) To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: SBI extension proposal Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 04:29:08 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <TU4PR8401MB09584566CCE279C368CFC145FFCF0@TU4PR8401MB0958.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAAhSdy3ZX=BqMS-MYnTHNZ9hxkJbt8i5nf5rOTf41FJ6rUpWpA@mail.gmail.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Anup Patel [mailto:anup at brainfault.org] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 11:27 AM > To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> > Cc: merker at debian.org; rjones at redhat.com; Mark Rutland > <mark.rutland@arm.com>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>; Damien > Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>; Olof Johansson > <olof.johansson@gmail.com>; Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>; > alankao at andestech.com; philipp at hug.cx; Zong Li <zong@andestech.com>; > Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>; Michael Clark <mjc@sifive.com>; Arnd > Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>; paul.walmsley at sifive.com; linux- > riscv at lists.infradead.org; Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) > <abner.chang@hpe.com>; vincentc at andestech.com; > David.Abdurachmanov at cern.ch > Subject: Re: SBI extension proposal > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:19 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 09:42:05 PDT (-0700), merker at debian.org wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 09:46:09AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:05:51PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > > [...] > > >> > > How about putting the version information into device tree and > > >> > > use the compatible string? This seems more reliable than > > >> > > probing. > > >> > > e.g. > > >> > > firmware { > > >> > > sbi { > > >> > > compatible = "riscv,sbi-r0p1", "riscv,sbi-r0p2"; > > >> > > }; > > >> > > }; > > >> > > > >> > If it was just DT then I think having this information in DT > > >> > makes sense. In future, we might definitely see some ACPI support > > >> > in RISC-V too (just like ARM64 world). > > >> > > >> I agree. Please try not to make things that depend on DT, as it's > > >> a Linux-only description which isn't suitable for other OSes and > > >> has a poorly defined ABI. > > > > > > the notion that DT is a "Linux-only" description and not suitable > > > for other operating systems isn't correct. Besides being used by > > > Linux, device-tree is also used by at least U-Boot, FreeBSD and > > > NetBSD. Based on issues in the early days of DT one can surely > > > discuss about device-tree ABI stability, but since then a lot of > > > effort has been put into making DT ABI-stable, and in my experience > > > this effort has been successful. On the other hand I have > > > experienced way more ACPI issues on x86-64 hardware than I would > > > like to remember, so I tend to assume that in the ACPI world also > > > not everything is nice and shining. > > > > I'm treating device tree as a stable interface, at least once it's > > written down as a spec (like all our other interfaces). At SiFive > > we're treating it as the standard interface for static device > > discovery, so interface breaks will be a huge pain. > > DT is a great HW description style (my opinion) but then there are ACPI fans > too. > > I think SBI spec should be independent of DT or ACPI or any other HW > description style. In fact, a simple bare-metal programs (without DT or ACPI > support) should also be able to make complete use of SBI. This will allow us > to develop baremetal test suit for SBI calls. > Agree. Please also consider EFI firmware code base. There is no DT in UEFI spec for H/W devices or other information. We would like to leverage SBI spec as well, and implement SBI in EFI firmware. Having SBI version in SBI spec makes more sense to different FW frameworks. > Regards, > Anup
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)" <abner.chang@hpe.com> To: Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Zong Li <zong@andestech.com>, Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>, Olof Johansson <olof.johansson@gmail.com>, Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>, "alankao@andestech.com" <alankao@andestech.com>, "Chen, Gilbert" <gilbert.chen@hpe.com>, "philipp@hug.cx" <philipp@hug.cx>, "vincentc@andestech.com" <vincentc@andestech.com>, "rjones@redhat.com" <rjones@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>, Michael Clark <mjc@sifive.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, "paul.walmsley@sifive.com" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, "merker@debian.org" <merker@debian.org>, "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>, "David.Abdurachmanov@cern.ch" <David.Abdurachmanov@cern.ch> Subject: RE: SBI extension proposal Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 04:29:08 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <TU4PR8401MB09584566CCE279C368CFC145FFCF0@TU4PR8401MB0958.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> (raw) Message-ID: <20181102042908.SCCJ-rHNJwqFSbdrYf8FcaWL8T66rO1vG9QkC7Lzdds@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAAhSdy3ZX=BqMS-MYnTHNZ9hxkJbt8i5nf5rOTf41FJ6rUpWpA@mail.gmail.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Anup Patel [mailto:anup@brainfault.org] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 11:27 AM > To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> > Cc: merker@debian.org; rjones@redhat.com; Mark Rutland > <mark.rutland@arm.com>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>; Damien > Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>; Olof Johansson > <olof.johansson@gmail.com>; Andrew Waterman <andrew@sifive.com>; > alankao@andestech.com; philipp@hug.cx; Zong Li <zong@andestech.com>; > Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>; Michael Clark <mjc@sifive.com>; Arnd > Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>; paul.walmsley@sifive.com; linux- > riscv@lists.infradead.org; Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) > <abner.chang@hpe.com>; vincentc@andestech.com; > David.Abdurachmanov@cern.ch > Subject: Re: SBI extension proposal > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:19 AM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 09:42:05 PDT (-0700), merker@debian.org wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 09:46:09AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 03:05:51PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > > [...] > > >> > > How about putting the version information into device tree and > > >> > > use the compatible string? This seems more reliable than > > >> > > probing. > > >> > > e.g. > > >> > > firmware { > > >> > > sbi { > > >> > > compatible = "riscv,sbi-r0p1", "riscv,sbi-r0p2"; > > >> > > }; > > >> > > }; > > >> > > > >> > If it was just DT then I think having this information in DT > > >> > makes sense. In future, we might definitely see some ACPI support > > >> > in RISC-V too (just like ARM64 world). > > >> > > >> I agree. Please try not to make things that depend on DT, as it's > > >> a Linux-only description which isn't suitable for other OSes and > > >> has a poorly defined ABI. > > > > > > the notion that DT is a "Linux-only" description and not suitable > > > for other operating systems isn't correct. Besides being used by > > > Linux, device-tree is also used by at least U-Boot, FreeBSD and > > > NetBSD. Based on issues in the early days of DT one can surely > > > discuss about device-tree ABI stability, but since then a lot of > > > effort has been put into making DT ABI-stable, and in my experience > > > this effort has been successful. On the other hand I have > > > experienced way more ACPI issues on x86-64 hardware than I would > > > like to remember, so I tend to assume that in the ACPI world also > > > not everything is nice and shining. > > > > I'm treating device tree as a stable interface, at least once it's > > written down as a spec (like all our other interfaces). At SiFive > > we're treating it as the standard interface for static device > > discovery, so interface breaks will be a huge pain. > > DT is a great HW description style (my opinion) but then there are ACPI fans > too. > > I think SBI spec should be independent of DT or ACPI or any other HW > description style. In fact, a simple bare-metal programs (without DT or ACPI > support) should also be able to make complete use of SBI. This will allow us > to develop baremetal test suit for SBI calls. > Agree. Please also consider EFI firmware code base. There is no DT in UEFI spec for H/W devices or other information. We would like to leverage SBI spec as well, and implement SBI in EFI firmware. Having SBI version in SBI spec makes more sense to different FW frameworks. > Regards, > Anup _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-02 4:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-10-31 18:23 SBI extension proposal Atish Patra 2018-10-31 18:23 ` Atish Patra [not found] ` <CAK-hmcQeiGa3BwnzEVB_dyhFiC7rXHFN-wTsJomg-jAo7a+v3Q@mail.gmail.com> 2018-10-31 19:11 ` Olof Johansson 2018-10-31 19:11 ` Olof Johansson 2018-10-31 20:37 ` Atish Patra 2018-10-31 20:37 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-02 6:31 ` Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) 2018-11-02 6:31 ` Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) 2018-11-02 22:31 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-02 22:31 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-04 14:36 ` Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) 2018-11-04 14:36 ` Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) [not found] ` <CA+h06zgcyWz7WMbzQxjyc9V5S3CokqSoO1mGOaynJE3uJE5QSg@mail.gmail.com> 2018-11-01 9:35 ` Anup Patel 2018-11-01 9:35 ` Anup Patel 2018-11-01 9:46 ` Richard W.M. Jones 2018-11-01 9:46 ` Richard W.M. Jones 2018-11-01 11:03 ` Philipp Hug 2018-11-01 11:03 ` Philipp Hug 2018-11-01 11:25 ` Richard W.M. Jones 2018-11-01 11:25 ` Richard W.M. Jones 2018-11-01 15:09 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-01 15:09 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-02 3:17 ` Olof Johansson 2018-11-02 3:17 ` Olof Johansson 2018-11-01 16:42 ` Karsten Merker 2018-11-02 2:49 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2018-11-02 2:49 ` Palmer Dabbelt 2018-11-02 3:27 ` Anup Patel 2018-11-02 3:27 ` Anup Patel 2018-11-02 4:29 ` Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) [this message] 2018-11-02 4:29 ` Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) 2018-11-02 15:24 ` Nick Kossifidis 2018-11-02 15:24 ` Nick Kossifidis 2018-11-02 23:12 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-02 23:12 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-02 23:45 ` Nick Kossifidis 2018-11-02 23:45 ` Nick Kossifidis 2018-11-03 0:00 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-03 0:00 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-05 13:50 ` Nick Kossifidis 2018-11-05 13:50 ` Nick Kossifidis 2018-11-05 18:51 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-05 18:51 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-06 1:55 ` Zong Li 2018-11-06 1:55 ` Zong Li 2018-11-09 21:47 ` Atish Patra 2018-11-09 21:47 ` Atish Patra
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=TU4PR8401MB09584566CCE279C368CFC145FFCF0@TU4PR8401MB0958.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM \ --to=abner.chang@hpe.com \ --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \ /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: linkBe 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).