From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752172Ab3G0Pdd (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:33:33 -0400 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:47942 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752071Ab3G0Pdc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:33:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,757,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="37790581" From: Ben Guthro To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Ben Guthro , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Jan Beulich , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Richard L Maliszewski , Gang Wei , Shane Wang , Bob Moore , "tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems Thread-Topic: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems Thread-Index: AQHOc0dQyh5+xchj8UCPGVjB0/UMk5l5AB8A///Wnc4= Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:33:31 +0000 Message-ID: <2A50FCBD-CD54-4C8D-A780-1CA7ACBC4E0B@citrix.com> References: <1372345323-9266-1-git-send-email-benjamin.guthro@citrix.com>,<2455068.P7gO5JL6M7@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <2455068.P7gO5JL6M7@vostro.rjw.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote: >> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with >> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get >> synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so >> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the >> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. >> >> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as >> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, >> there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that >> alternative interface). >> >> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support >> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of >> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich >> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski >> Cc: Gang Wei >> Cc: Shane Wang >> Cc: Bob Moore >> Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki >> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> >> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change >> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems >> Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 >> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies >> Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL >> More bool vs u8 fixes >> >> Ben Guthro (5): >> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code >> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path >> acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter >> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep >> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available > > The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want > acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA > is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it. > > This means that patch [1/5] goes away. > > That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which > is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep. > > For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the > way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of > the arguments is simply disgusting. > > To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep() > specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen > use that. > > This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the > upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be just > a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be > such a big deal. > Ok, thank you for the review, and being open to addressing the problem at hand, without a full architecture rework (not to say that that discussion is not also needed) I will try to make some time next week to rework the patch set to address these concerns, and submit a new series. Thanks Ben > Thanks, > Rafael > > > -- > I speak only for myself. > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.