From: graeme.gregory@linaro.org (Graeme Gregory)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 19/19] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:23:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53D616AD.2090501@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5014834.k6eecMddPC@wuerfel>
On 28/07/2014 10:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 26 July 2014 19:34:48 Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> +Relationship with Device Tree
>>> +-----------------------------
>>> +
>>> +ACPI support in drivers and subsystems for ARMv8 should never be mutually
>>> +exclusive with DT support at compile time.
>>> +
>>> +At boot time the kernel will only use one description method depending on
>>> +parameters passed from the bootloader.
>> Possibly overriden by kernel bootargs. And as debated for quite a
>> while earlier this year, acpi should still default to off -- if a DT
>> and ACPI are both passed in, DT should at this time be given priority.
> I think this would be harder to do with the way that ACPI is passed in
> to the kernel. IIRC, you always have a minimal DT information based on
> the ARM64 boot protocol, but in the case of ACPI, this contains pointers
> to the ACPI tables, which are then used for populating the Linux platform
> devices (unless acpi=disabled is set), while the other contents of the
> DTB may be present but we skip the of_platform_populate state.
>
> If this is correct, then replacing the firmware-generated dtb with a
> user-provided on would implicitly remove the ACPI tables from visibility,
> which is exactly what we want.
>
> It's possible that I'm misremembering it though, and it should be
> documented better.
>
>>> +Regardless of whether DT or ACPI is used, the kernel must always be capable
>>> +of booting with either scheme.
>> It should always be possible to compile out ACPI. There will be plenty
>> of platforms that will not implement it, so disabling CONFIG_ACPI
>> needs to be possible.
> Right.
>
>>> +Clocks
>>> +------
>>> +
>>> +Like clocks that are part of the power resources there is no standard way
>>> +to represent a clock tree in ACPI 5.1 in a similar manner to how it is
>>> +described in DT.
>>> +
>>> +Devices affected by this include things like UARTs, SoC driven LCD displays,
>>> +etc.
>>> +
>>> +The firmware for example UEFI should initialise these clocks to fixed working
>>> +values before the kernel is executed. If a driver requires to know rates of
>>> +clocks set by firmware then they can be passed to kernel using _DSD.
>>> +
>>> +example :-
>>> +
>>> +Device (CLK0) {
>>> + ...
>>> +
>>> + Name (_DSD, Package() {
>>> + ToUUID("XXXXX"),
>>> + Package() {
>>> + Package(2) {"#clock-cells", 0},
>> Clock-cells? What do they mean here? Is this specified in the ACPI
>> standards? I had to register to get access to it, and didn't feel like
>> doing that right now. I guess it's not _all_ that open a spec. :(
> ...
>>> + Package(2) {"clock-frequency", "10000"}
>>> + }
>>> + })
>>> +
>>> + ...
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +Device (USR1) {
>>> + ...
>>> +
>>> + Name (_DSD, Package() {
>>> + ToUUID("XXXXX"),
>>> + Package() {
>>> + Package(2) {"clocks", Package() {1, ^CLK0}}},
>> A clock is a device in the ACPI model? Why not just provide the rate
>> as data into the device here? You said you're not trying to model the
>> clock tree, so why reference an external node for it?
> Exactly. I think what is going on here is a conflict of interests between
> Intel's embedded ACPI uses and the ARM64 server requirements. The above
> closely resembles what we do in DT, and that makes perfect sense for
> Intel's machines so they can reuse a lot of the infrastructure we put
> in place for DT. I also suspect it will take a few more years before
> this actually gets accepted into both an ACPI specification and the
> common operating systems (no point doing it if only Linux is going to
> adopt it).
>
> For the servers, I don't see how it makes any sense at all, independent
> of the architecture, and relying on a feature like this would only serve
> to delay the adoption of ACPI (whether that is a good or bad thing
> may be a matter of perspective).
>
> Maybe Graeme or others can comment on where this is coming from. What kind
> of driver would actually need to find out the clock rate of a device on
> an arm64 server? The examples above list "UARTs, SoC driven LCD displays,
> etc.". For all I know, the UART is required to be PL01x (without DMA)
> compatible, which should be fully described in ACPI, and I don't see why
> a server would come with an LCD.
>
>
The PL011 UART is the use-case I keep hitting, that IP block has a
variable input clock on pretty much everything I have seen in the wild.
I really hope that this use does not spread beyond a few essential
devices like the UART. IMO all real hardware should be the other side of
a PCIe bridge.
Graeme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-28 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 131+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-24 13:00 [PATCH 00/19] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 01/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables Hanjun Guo
2014-07-28 18:29 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-28 22:49 ` Graeme Gregory
2014-07-29 8:49 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-29 13:08 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-29 13:50 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-29 14:07 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-28 18:30 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 02/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" Hanjun Guo
2014-07-28 18:35 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-29 13:10 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 03/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 15:34 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-25 10:42 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-28 18:28 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-29 13:00 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 04/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arch_fix_phys_package_id() for cpu topology Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 14:43 ` Mark Brown
2014-07-25 10:32 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-28 18:51 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-08-01 6:35 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-08-01 10:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 05/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64 Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 21:57 ` Naresh Bhat
2014-07-29 16:40 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 06/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI flags for PSCI init Hanjun Guo
2014-07-29 16:40 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-31 3:53 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-31 4:22 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-31 10:23 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-08-20 15:02 ` Grant Likely
2014-08-20 15:00 ` Grant Likely
2014-08-20 15:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-08-20 15:43 ` graeme.gregory at linaro.org
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 07/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT to map logical cpu to MPIDR and get cpu_possible/present_map Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 23:06 ` Naresh Bhat
2014-07-25 11:11 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-30 18:20 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-31 8:14 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-08-20 15:14 ` Grant Likely
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 08/19] ACPI / table: Print GIC information when MADT is parsed Hanjun Guo
2014-07-30 18:21 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-07-31 8:15 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 09/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) before acpi_boot_init() Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 15:21 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-25 10:39 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-25 12:18 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 10/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Get the enable method for SMP initialization in ACPI way Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 15:47 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-25 10:51 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-25 12:24 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-29 8:12 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-31 6:54 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-31 10:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-08-04 9:56 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-31 18:52 ` Geoff Levand
2014-08-01 6:49 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 11/19] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 12/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 13/19] ACPI / table: Add new function to get table entries Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 14/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 15/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse GTDT to initialize arch timer Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 16/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI is enabled on ARM64 Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 17/19] ARM64 / ACPI: If we chose to boot from acpi then disable FDT Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 18/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Enable ARM64 in Kconfig Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 13:00 ` [PATCH 19/19] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Hanjun Guo
2014-07-24 20:42 ` Randy Dunlap
2014-07-25 10:55 ` Hanjun Guo
[not found] ` <CAFoFrHaWWxRPRYM5+bWj0tGnz05SokqwVGejUCUi+U-KChFBdQ@mail.gmail.com>
2014-07-24 21:19 ` Randy Dunlap
2014-07-29 10:07 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-27 2:34 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-28 8:42 ` Graeme Gregory
2014-07-28 16:23 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-28 17:44 ` Mark Brown
2014-07-28 9:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-28 9:23 ` Graeme Gregory [this message]
2014-07-28 10:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-28 14:20 ` Andre Przywara
2014-07-28 15:23 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-28 16:14 ` Andre Przywara
2014-07-29 9:17 ` Graeme Gregory
2014-07-29 10:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-28 10:12 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-28 16:33 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-28 18:37 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-28 18:44 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-28 16:27 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-28 17:00 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-28 18:27 ` Olof Johansson
2014-08-12 18:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-08-13 23:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-08-14 3:21 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-08-14 10:27 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-08-14 20:53 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-08-15 1:02 ` Olof Johansson
2014-08-15 19:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-08-15 23:19 ` Mark Brown
2014-08-16 12:51 ` graeme.gregory at linaro.org
2014-08-15 9:09 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-08-15 10:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-08-18 9:29 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-08-18 12:49 ` Mark Rutland
2014-08-20 22:17 ` Olof Johansson
2014-08-21 4:00 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-29 9:01 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-28 10:06 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-28 16:44 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-28 17:36 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-28 18:34 ` Olof Johansson
2014-07-29 10:29 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-29 10:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-29 10:55 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-29 11:28 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-29 12:37 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-29 12:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-29 13:08 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-29 13:31 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-29 14:04 ` Mark Rutland
2014-07-29 14:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-07-29 15:01 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-30 6:47 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-30 7:14 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-30 9:36 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-29 13:33 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-07-29 7:58 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-07-29 10:30 ` Christoffer Dall
2014-08-15 22:43 ` Len Brown
2014-08-16 12:45 ` Graeme Gregory
2014-08-20 16:42 ` Grant Likely
2014-07-25 0:46 ` [PATCH 00/19] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
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=53D616AD.2090501@linaro.org \
--to=graeme.gregory@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@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: 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).