* [PATCH v3 01/17] ARM64: Move the init of cpu_logical_map(0) before unflatten_device_tree()
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables Hanjun Guo
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the
hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0)
before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index f6f0ccf..c96172a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -390,11 +390,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
efi_idmap_init();
+ cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK;
unflatten_device_tree();
psci_init();
- cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK;
cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
smp_init_cpus();
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 01/17] ARM64: Move the init of cpu_logical_map(0) before unflatten_device_tree() Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 16:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 03/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function Hanjun Guo
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Tomasz Nowicki, Hanjun Guo
From: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
As we want to get ACPI tables to parse and then use the information
for system initialization, we should get the RSDP (Root System
Description Pointer) first, it then locates Extended Root Description
Table (XSDT) which contains all the 64-bit physical address that
pointer to other boot-time tables.
Introduce acpi.c and its related head file in this patch to provide
fundamental needs of extern variables and functions for ACPI core,
and then get boot-time tables as needed.
- asm/acenv.h for arch specific ACPICA environments and
implementation;
- asm/acpi.h for arch specific variables and functions needed by
ACPI driver core;
- acpi.c for ARM64 related ACPI implementation for ACPI driver
core;
acpi_boot_table_init() is introduced to get RSDP and boot-time tables,
it will be called in setup_arch() before paging_init(), so we should
use eary_memremap() mechanism here to get the RSDP and all the table
pointers.
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h | 18 +++++++++++
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile | 1 +
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 4 +++
5 files changed, 137 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3899ee6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+/*
+ * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
+ * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
+ * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+
+#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
+#define _ASM_ACENV_H
+
+#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
+
+#endif /* _ASM_ACENV_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8b837ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2013-2014, Linaro Ltd.
+ * Author: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
+ * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
+ * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation;
+ */
+
+#ifndef _ASM_ACPI_H
+#define _ASM_ACPI_H
+
+/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+#define acpi_strict 1 /* No out-of-spec workarounds on ARM64 */
+extern int acpi_disabled;
+extern int acpi_noirq;
+extern int acpi_pci_disabled;
+
+static inline void disable_acpi(void)
+{
+ acpi_disabled = 1;
+ acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
+ acpi_noirq = 1;
+}
+
+/*
+ * It's used from ACPI core in kdump to boot UP system with SMP kernel,
+ * with this check the ACPI core will not override the CPU index
+ * obtained from GICC with 0 and not print some error message as well.
+ * Since MADT must provide at least one GICC structure for GIC
+ * initialization, CPU will be always available in MADT on ARM64.
+ */
+static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void)
+{
+ return true;
+}
+
+static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
+
+#endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
index df7ef87..29ea7d6 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64_CPU_SUSPEND) += sleep.o suspend.o
arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL) += jump_label.o
arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_KGDB) += kgdb.o
arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_EFI) += efi.o efi-stub.o efi-entry.o
+arm64-obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += acpi.o
obj-y += $(arm64-obj-y) vdso/
obj-m += $(arm64-obj-m)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9252f72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+/*
+ * ARM64 Specific Low-Level ACPI Boot Support
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2013-2014, Linaro Ltd.
+ * Author: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
+ * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
+ * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
+ * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
+ * Author: Naresh Bhat <naresh.bhat@linaro.org>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
+#include <linux/cpumask.h>
+#include <linux/memblock.h>
+#include <linux/irq.h>
+#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
+#include <linux/bootmem.h>
+#include <linux/smp.h>
+
+int acpi_noirq; /* skip ACPI IRQ initialization */
+int acpi_disabled;
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
+
+int acpi_pci_disabled; /* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
+
+/*
+ * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
+ * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
+ */
+char *__init __acpi_map_table(unsigned long phys, unsigned long size)
+{
+ if (!phys || !size)
+ return NULL;
+
+ return early_memremap(phys, size);
+}
+
+void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size)
+{
+ if (!map || !size)
+ return;
+
+ early_memunmap(map, size);
+}
+
+/*
+ * acpi_boot_table_init() called from setup_arch(), always.
+ * 1. find RSDP and get its address, and then find XSDT
+ * 2. extract all tables and checksums them all
+ *
+ * We can parse ACPI boot-time tables such as MADT after
+ * this function is called.
+ */
+void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
+{
+ /* If acpi_disabled, bail out */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return;
+
+ /* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser. */
+ if (acpi_table_init())
+ disable_acpi();
+}
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index c96172a..fb7cc0e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
#include <linux/of_platform.h>
#include <linux/efi.h>
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <asm/fixmap.h>
#include <asm/cpu.h>
@@ -385,6 +386,9 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
efi_init();
arm64_memblock_init();
+ /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+ acpi_boot_table_init();
+
paging_init();
request_standard_resources();
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 16:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-09 16:41 ` Jon Masters
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-09 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: hanjun.guo
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Tomasz Nowicki
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..3899ee6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> +/*
> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> +
> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..9252f72
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
[...]
> +/*
> + * acpi_boot_table_init() called from setup_arch(), always.
> + * 1. find RSDP and get its address, and then find XSDT
> + * 2. extract all tables and checksums them all
> + *
> + * We can parse ACPI boot-time tables such as MADT after
> + * this function is called.
> + */
> +void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> +{
> + /* If acpi_disabled, bail out */
> + if (acpi_disabled)
> + return;
So at this point, there wouldn't be anything yet to set acpi_disabled to
1, unless !CONFIG_ACPI.
> +
> + /* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser. */
> + if (acpi_table_init())
> + disable_acpi();
Do you need anything more to add to this function later? Otherwise, just
call it in setup_arch() directly (maybe dependent on
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) or just create an equivalent dummy
acpi_table_init() when not configured).
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> index c96172a..fb7cc0e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
> #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> #include <linux/efi.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>
> #include <asm/fixmap.h>
> #include <asm/cpu.h>
> @@ -385,6 +386,9 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> efi_init();
> arm64_memblock_init();
>
> + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
> + acpi_boot_table_init();
Is there any dummy acpi_boot_table_init() when !CONFIG_ACPI? I couldn't
see one in this patch, so I don't see how this would compile when ACPI
is disabled.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 16:26 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-09 16:41 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 16:44 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 17:15 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-09 16:54 ` Mark Rutland
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +/*
>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>> +
>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>
> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
(e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3). As you note, it's not
going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86, but it's optional to
implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should not report Wbindv flags
in the FADT anyway. They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has
the effect of disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST
objects to define more flexible C-States later on.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 16:41 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 16:44 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 17:15 ` Mark Rutland
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas
Cc: linux-acpi, Randy Dunlap, Arnd Bergmann, Charles Garcia-Tobin,
Lv Zheng, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Sudeep Holla, Rafael J. Wysocki,
grant.likely, Will Deacon, graeme.gregory, Olof Johansson,
Robert Richter, Daniel Lezcano, Liviu Dudau, Bjorn Helgaas,
Marc Zyngier, Rob Herring, linux-kernel, Mark Brown,
linux-arm-kernel, Mark Rutland, Robert Moore, Jason Cooper
One of the ARM guys pointed out the cache issue before I had meant to send this note then. Sorry.
--
Computer Architect | Sent from my #ARM Powered Mobile device
On Sep 9, 2014 12:41 PM, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +/*
>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>> +
>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>
> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
(e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3). As you note, it's not
going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86, but it's optional to
implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should not report Wbindv flags
in the FADT anyway. They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has
the effect of disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST
objects to define more flexible C-States later on.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 16:41 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 16:44 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 17:15 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-09 17:33 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 17:50 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
1 sibling, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-09-09 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Masters
Cc: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..3899ee6
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> >> +/*
> >> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> >> + *
> >> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> >> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> >> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> >> + *
> >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> >> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> >> +
> >> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
> >
> > Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> > places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> > ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> > compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> > relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
>
> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
> define more flexible C-States later on.
It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
actually report things correctly.
Mark.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 17:15 ` Mark Rutland
@ 2014-09-09 17:33 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 17:50 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On 09/09/2014 01:15 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>>>> + *
>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>> +
>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>>>
>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
>>
>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
>
> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
That's not quite what it says. You could still define an \_S1 state on
such a system. That table simply makes an assumption that if the stride
parameters are not defined and neither is wbindv then there's no way to
reliably flush caches, which of course isn't a valid conclusion, it's
just language that needs to be updated to reflect reality. So it's not
"don't get", it's "machine cannot support", which is an assumption.
>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
>
> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
Indeed.
>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
>> define more flexible C-States later on.
>
> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
> actually report things correctly.
It's reasonable to do this sooner rather than later, sure.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 17:15 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-09 17:33 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 17:50 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-09 18:05 ` Sudeep Holla
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2014-09-09 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: jcm, Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring,
Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > >> new file mode 100644
> > >> index 0000000..3899ee6
> > >> --- /dev/null
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > >> +/*
> > >> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> > >> + *
> > >> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> > >> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> > >> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> > >> + *
> > >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > >> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >> + */
> > >> +
> > >> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> > >> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> > >> +
> > >> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
> > >
> > > Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> > > places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> > > ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> > > compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> > > relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
> >
> > That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
> > (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
>
> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
>
> > As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
> > but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
> > not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
>
> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
>
> > They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
> > disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
> > define more flexible C-States later on.
>
> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
> actually report things correctly.
I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
Catalin pointed out.
I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
Lorenzo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 17:50 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2014-09-09 18:05 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-09-09 19:06 ` Jon Masters
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2014-09-09 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland
Cc: Sudeep Holla, jcm, Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo,
Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring,
Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
>>>
>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
>>
>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
>>
>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
>>
>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
>>
>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
>>
>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
>> actually report things correctly.
>
> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
> Catalin pointed out.
>
> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
>
I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:
"
/* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);
"
I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it
properly.
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 18:05 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2014-09-09 19:06 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-10 11:13 ` Hanjun Guo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland
Cc: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/09/2014 02:05 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
>>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
>>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
>>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
>>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
>>>>
>>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
>>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
>>>
>>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
>>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
>>>
>>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
>>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
>>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
>>>
>>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
>>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
>>>
>>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
>>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
>>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
>>>
>>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
>>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
>>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
>>> actually report things correctly.
>>
>> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
>> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
>> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
>> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
>> Catalin pointed out.
>>
>> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
>> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
>> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
>> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
>>
>
> I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
> every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
> to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:
>
> "
> /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
> acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);
> "
>
> I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it
> properly.
Hanjun,
How do you want to proceed? I'm not sure it should be !HW_REDUCED_MODE
for the cache behavior, because an embedded x86 box would still probably
define those, but removing the hooks on ARM may make sense.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 19:06 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-10 11:13 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-10 12:33 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-10 21:41 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-10 11:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Masters, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland
Cc: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 2014/9/10 3:06, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 02:05 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
>>>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
>>>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
>>>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
>>>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
>>>>>
>>>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
>>>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
>>>>
>>>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
>>>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
>>>>
>>>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
>>>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
>>>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
>>>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
>>>>
>>>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
>>>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
>>>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
>>>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
>>>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
>>>> actually report things correctly.
>>>
>>> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
>>> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
>>> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
>>> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
>>> Catalin pointed out.
>>>
>>> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
>>> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
>>> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
>>> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
>>>
>>
>> I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
>> every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
>> to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:
>>
>> "
>> /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
>> acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);
>> "
>>
>> I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it
>> properly.
>
> Hanjun,
>
> How do you want to proceed? I'm not sure it should be !HW_REDUCED_MODE
> for the cache behavior, because an embedded x86 box would still probably
> define those, but removing the hooks on ARM may make sense.
As Graeme said in the reply, for sleep we are doing the same thing as
ia64 in stubbing out the functions, and before that we are trying to remove
the hooks on ARM by introducing more stubs and making things more complicated.
I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
that in a good shape.
ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-10 11:13 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-10 12:33 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-10 21:51 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-10 21:41 ` Grant Likely
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-10 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: jcm, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland, hanjun.guo,
Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring,
Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:13:51PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014/9/10 3:06, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 09/09/2014 02:05 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >> On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> >>>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
> >>>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> >>>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> >>>>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >>>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >>>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> >>>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> >>>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> >>>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> >>>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> >>>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
> >>>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
> >>>>
> >>>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
> >>>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
> >>>>
> >>>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
> >>>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
> >>>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
> >>>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
> >>>>
> >>>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
> >>>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
> >>>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
> >>>>
> >>>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
> >>>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
> >>>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
> >>>> actually report things correctly.
> >>>
> >>> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
> >>> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
> >>> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
> >>> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
> >>> Catalin pointed out.
> >>>
> >>> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
> >>> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
> >>> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
> >>> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
> >> every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
> >> to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:
> >>
> >> "
> >> /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
> >> acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);
> >> "
> >>
> >> I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it
> >> properly.
Agree.
> > How do you want to proceed? I'm not sure it should be !HW_REDUCED_MODE
> > for the cache behavior, because an embedded x86 box would still probably
> > define those, but removing the hooks on ARM may make sense.
>
> As Graeme said in the reply, for sleep we are doing the same thing as
> ia64 in stubbing out the functions,
Sorry, that's not really an argument.
> and before that we are trying to remove
> the hooks on ARM by introducing more stubs and making things more complicated.
I still think you can make things simpler by not compiling the code
in question because we'll never implement such hooks on arm64, they
don't make sense from an architecture perspective (whole cache flushing
with MMU enabled cannot be done).
> I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
> stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
> need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
> starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
>
> Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
> and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
> we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
> that in a good shape.
>
> ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
> fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
> management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
I don't have a problem with implementing (rather than fixing) power
management later, once the ACPI spec covers it. But the point a few of
us were trying to make is that even when ACPI spec is updated, the
current power management code and hooks still won't make sense on ARM.
The best is to avoid compiling it for ARM now and look at refactoring it
later to accommodate ARM ACPI.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-10 12:33 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-10 21:51 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-16 5:29 ` Zheng, Lv
0 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-10 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Hanjun Guo
Cc: jcm, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland, hanjun.guo,
Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:33:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:13:51PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > On 2014/9/10 3:06, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > On 09/09/2014 02:05 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > >> On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> > >>>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > >>>>>>> new file mode 100644
> > >>>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
> > >>>>>>> --- /dev/null
> > >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > >>>>>>> +/*
> > >>>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> > >>>>>>> + *
> > >>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> > >>>>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> > >>>>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> > >>>>>>> + *
> > >>>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > >>>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > >>>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > >>>>>>> + */
> > >>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> > >>>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> > >>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> > >>>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> > >>>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> > >>>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> > >>>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
> > >>>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
> > >>>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
> > >>>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
> > >>>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
> > >>>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
> > >>>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
> > >>>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
> > >>>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
> > >>>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
> > >>>> actually report things correctly.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
> > >>> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
> > >>> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
> > >>> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
> > >>> Catalin pointed out.
> > >>>
> > >>> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
> > >>> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
> > >>> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
> > >>> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
> > >> every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
> > >> to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:
> > >>
> > >> "
> > >> /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
> > >> acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);
> > >> "
> > >>
> > >> I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it
> > >> properly.
>
> Agree.
>
> > > How do you want to proceed? I'm not sure it should be !HW_REDUCED_MODE
> > > for the cache behavior, because an embedded x86 box would still probably
> > > define those, but removing the hooks on ARM may make sense.
> >
> > As Graeme said in the reply, for sleep we are doing the same thing as
> > ia64 in stubbing out the functions,
>
> Sorry, that's not really an argument.
>
> > and before that we are trying to remove
> > the hooks on ARM by introducing more stubs and making things more complicated.
>
> I still think you can make things simpler by not compiling the code
> in question because we'll never implement such hooks on arm64, they
> don't make sense from an architecture perspective (whole cache flushing
> with MMU enabled cannot be done).
>
> > I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
> > stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
> > need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
> > starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
> >
> > Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
> > and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
> > we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
> > that in a good shape.
> >
> > ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
> > fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
> > management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
>
> I don't have a problem with implementing (rather than fixing) power
> management later, once the ACPI spec covers it. But the point a few of
> us were trying to make is that even when ACPI spec is updated, the
> current power management code and hooks still won't make sense on ARM.
> The best is to avoid compiling it for ARM now and look at refactoring it
> later to accommodate ARM ACPI.
I disagree strongly here. We're talking about a library of code that is
working on x86 and ia64, but hasn't been tuned for ARM. Trying to
refactor it first, and then get it compiling for ARM is entirely the
wrong way around. The best way to get that code refactored for
ARM is to get it compiling first, and then refactor it to remove the
unnecessary stubs. That makes it a whole lot easier to make the
arguements about why the changes are needed. Otherwise it just shows
churn on the ACPICA side without any evidence of why the change is
good. Trying to refactor first also has the risk of breaking things
that work now in the name of "refactoring" and not being able to easily
bisect it for ARM. That's just madness.
Aside from a slightly larger kernel, there is no downside to using
stubs for now.
Getting things working is the first step. Then we've got a good base to
launch the refactoring from.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-10 21:51 ` Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-11 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-14 15:40 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-16 5:29 ` Zheng, Lv
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-11 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: guohanjun, jcm, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland,
hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring,
Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:51:30PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:33:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:13:51PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
> > > stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
> > > need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
> > > starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
> > >
> > > Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
> > > and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
> > > we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
> > > that in a good shape.
> > >
> > > ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
> > > fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
> > > management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
> >
> > I don't have a problem with implementing (rather than fixing) power
> > management later, once the ACPI spec covers it. But the point a few of
> > us were trying to make is that even when ACPI spec is updated, the
> > current power management code and hooks still won't make sense on ARM.
> > The best is to avoid compiling it for ARM now and look at refactoring it
> > later to accommodate ARM ACPI.
>
> I disagree strongly here. We're talking about a library of code that is
> working on x86 and ia64, but hasn't been tuned for ARM.
I think where we disagree is the "tuning" part. If it's just that, it
would be fine, but there are fundamental differences in the
architectures that the above would not even make sense on ARM (so it's
more like rewriting than tuning).
> Trying to
> refactor it first, and then get it compiling for ARM is entirely the
> wrong way around.
Note that I explicitly stated "refactoring it later". I have not asked
for the existing code to be refactored _now_ as it's not even clear how
it would look like on ARM (what's clear though is that its behaviour is
_undefined_).
> The best way to get that code refactored for
> ARM is to get it compiling first, and then refactor it to remove the
> unnecessary stubs. That makes it a whole lot easier to make the
> arguements about why the changes are needed. Otherwise it just shows
> churn on the ACPICA side without any evidence of why the change is
> good. Trying to refactor first also has the risk of breaking things
> that work now in the name of "refactoring" and not being able to easily
> bisect it for ARM. That's just madness.
I agree with not starting the refactoring now. But is it difficult to
make it compilable based on something like CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP and the
latter depend on !ARM64 until the spec is clear?
> Aside from a slightly larger kernel, there is no downside to using
> stubs for now.
There is a serious downside - code with _undefined_ behaviour on arm64
that may get executed depending on the content of the ACPI tables. I'm
sure it's a lot of fun debugging this.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-11 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-14 15:40 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-14 21:59 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-14 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas
Cc: guohanjun, jcm, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland,
hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring,
Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:01:46 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:51:30PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:33:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:13:51PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > > I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
> > > > stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
> > > > need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
> > > > starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
> > > >
> > > > Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
> > > > and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
> > > > we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
> > > > that in a good shape.
> > > >
> > > > ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
> > > > fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
> > > > management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
> > >
> > > I don't have a problem with implementing (rather than fixing) power
> > > management later, once the ACPI spec covers it. But the point a few of
> > > us were trying to make is that even when ACPI spec is updated, the
> > > current power management code and hooks still won't make sense on ARM.
> > > The best is to avoid compiling it for ARM now and look at refactoring it
> > > later to accommodate ARM ACPI.
> >
> > I disagree strongly here. We're talking about a library of code that is
> > working on x86 and ia64, but hasn't been tuned for ARM.
>
> I think where we disagree is the "tuning" part. If it's just that, it
> would be fine, but there are fundamental differences in the
> architectures that the above would not even make sense on ARM (so it's
> more like rewriting than tuning).
>
> > Trying to
> > refactor it first, and then get it compiling for ARM is entirely the
> > wrong way around.
>
> Note that I explicitly stated "refactoring it later". I have not asked
> for the existing code to be refactored _now_ as it's not even clear how
> it would look like on ARM (what's clear though is that its behaviour is
> _undefined_).
>
> > The best way to get that code refactored for
> > ARM is to get it compiling first, and then refactor it to remove the
> > unnecessary stubs. That makes it a whole lot easier to make the
> > arguements about why the changes are needed. Otherwise it just shows
> > churn on the ACPICA side without any evidence of why the change is
> > good. Trying to refactor first also has the risk of breaking things
> > that work now in the name of "refactoring" and not being able to easily
> > bisect it for ARM. That's just madness.
>
> I agree with not starting the refactoring now. But is it difficult to
> make it compilable based on something like CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP and the
> latter depend on !ARM64 until the spec is clear?
This particular issue is pretty much moot now. The latest series was
able to compile out the sleep functions. If they hadn't however, we
weren't at any risk. Empty hooks have no impact, and even if the
behaviour is defined in a future revision of the spec, they will remain
noops for ACPI 5.1 systems.
>
> > Aside from a slightly larger kernel, there is no downside to using
> > stubs for now.
>
> There is a serious downside - code with _undefined_ behaviour on arm64
> that may get executed depending on the content of the ACPI tables. I'm
> sure it's a lot of fun debugging this.
It's really easy for us to deal with this. For ACPI 5.1, we don't do
anything, and we should never try to do anything with those states. If
and when a future revision of the ACPI spec appears that does define
those states, then we will use them, but only if the reported ACPI
version is high enough.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-14 15:40 ` Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-14 21:59 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-15 3:53 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-14 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: guohanjun, Jon Masters, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi,
Mark Rutland, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown,
Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On 14 Sep 2014, at 16:40, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:01:46 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:51:30PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:33:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:13:51PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
>>>>> stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
>>>>> need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
>>>>> starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
>>>>> and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
>>>>> we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
>>>>> that in a good shape.
>>>>>
>>>>> ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
>>>>> fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
>>>>> management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with implementing (rather than fixing) power
>>>> management later, once the ACPI spec covers it. But the point a few of
>>>> us were trying to make is that even when ACPI spec is updated, the
>>>> current power management code and hooks still won't make sense on ARM.
>>>> The best is to avoid compiling it for ARM now and look at refactoring it
>>>> later to accommodate ARM ACPI.
>>>
>>> I disagree strongly here. We're talking about a library of code that is
>>> working on x86 and ia64, but hasn't been tuned for ARM.
>>
>> I think where we disagree is the "tuning" part. If it's just that, it
>> would be fine, but there are fundamental differences in the
>> architectures that the above would not even make sense on ARM (so it's
>> more like rewriting than tuning).
>>
>>> Trying to
>>> refactor it first, and then get it compiling for ARM is entirely the
>>> wrong way around.
>>
>> Note that I explicitly stated "refactoring it later". I have not asked
>> for the existing code to be refactored _now_ as it's not even clear how
>> it would look like on ARM (what's clear though is that its behaviour is
>> _undefined_).
>>
>>> The best way to get that code refactored for
>>> ARM is to get it compiling first, and then refactor it to remove the
>>> unnecessary stubs. That makes it a whole lot easier to make the
>>> arguements about why the changes are needed. Otherwise it just shows
>>> churn on the ACPICA side without any evidence of why the change is
>>> good. Trying to refactor first also has the risk of breaking things
>>> that work now in the name of "refactoring" and not being able to easily
>>> bisect it for ARM. That's just madness.
>>
>> I agree with not starting the refactoring now. But is it difficult to
>> make it compilable based on something like CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP and the
>> latter depend on !ARM64 until the spec is clear?
>
> This particular issue is pretty much moot now. The latest series was
> able to compile out the sleep functions.
That’s what I was looking for.
> If they hadn't however, we
> weren't at any risk. Empty hooks have no impact, and even if the
> behaviour is defined in a future revision of the spec, they will remain
> noops for ACPI 5.1 systems.
It’s not the hooks I’m worried about but the code that calls those
hooks. As Sudeep pointed out, the kernel will probably panic before even
reaching the hooks. IOW, would you have been OK with simply defining
these hooks as BUG()?
In principle, I’m against compiling in code paths that you can never
test, it just goes against the idea of a “robust" system.
>>> Aside from a slightly larger kernel, there is no downside to using
>>> stubs for now.
>>
>> There is a serious downside - code with _undefined_ behaviour on arm64
>> that may get executed depending on the content of the ACPI tables. I'm
>> sure it's a lot of fun debugging this.
>
> It's really easy for us to deal with this. For ACPI 5.1, we don't do
> anything, and we should never try to do anything with those states. If
> and when a future revision of the ACPI spec appears that does define
> those states, then we will use them, but only if the reported ACPI
> version is high enough.
It’s the other way around: the reported ACPI version (by firmware) is
high enough but the kernel code is not updated beyond 5.1 and may run
the current ARM-undefined ACPI sleep code.
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-14 21:59 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-15 3:53 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-15 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas
Cc: guohanjun, Jon Masters, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi,
Mark Rutland, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown,
Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2014, at 16:40, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:01:46 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:51:30PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:33:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:13:51PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
>>>>>> stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
>>>>>> need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
>>>>>> starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
>>>>>> and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
>>>>>> we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
>>>>>> that in a good shape.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
>>>>>> fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
>>>>>> management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a problem with implementing (rather than fixing) power
>>>>> management later, once the ACPI spec covers it. But the point a few of
>>>>> us were trying to make is that even when ACPI spec is updated, the
>>>>> current power management code and hooks still won't make sense on ARM.
>>>>> The best is to avoid compiling it for ARM now and look at refactoring it
>>>>> later to accommodate ARM ACPI.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree strongly here. We're talking about a library of code that is
>>>> working on x86 and ia64, but hasn't been tuned for ARM.
>>>
>>> I think where we disagree is the "tuning" part. If it's just that, it
>>> would be fine, but there are fundamental differences in the
>>> architectures that the above would not even make sense on ARM (so it's
>>> more like rewriting than tuning).
>>>
>>>> Trying to
>>>> refactor it first, and then get it compiling for ARM is entirely the
>>>> wrong way around.
>>>
>>> Note that I explicitly stated "refactoring it later". I have not asked
>>> for the existing code to be refactored _now_ as it's not even clear how
>>> it would look like on ARM (what's clear though is that its behaviour is
>>> _undefined_).
>>>
>>>> The best way to get that code refactored for
>>>> ARM is to get it compiling first, and then refactor it to remove the
>>>> unnecessary stubs. That makes it a whole lot easier to make the
>>>> arguements about why the changes are needed. Otherwise it just shows
>>>> churn on the ACPICA side without any evidence of why the change is
>>>> good. Trying to refactor first also has the risk of breaking things
>>>> that work now in the name of "refactoring" and not being able to easily
>>>> bisect it for ARM. That's just madness.
>>>
>>> I agree with not starting the refactoring now. But is it difficult to
>>> make it compilable based on something like CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP and the
>>> latter depend on !ARM64 until the spec is clear?
>>
>> This particular issue is pretty much moot now. The latest series was
>> able to compile out the sleep functions.
>
> That's what I was looking for.
>
>> If they hadn't however, we
>> weren't at any risk. Empty hooks have no impact, and even if the
>> behaviour is defined in a future revision of the spec, they will remain
>> noops for ACPI 5.1 systems.
>
> It's not the hooks I'm worried about but the code that calls those
> hooks. As Sudeep pointed out, the kernel will probably panic before even
> reaching the hooks. IOW, would you have been OK with simply defining
> these hooks as BUG()?
Yes.
> In principle, I'm against compiling in code paths that you can never
> test, it just goes against the idea of a "robust" system.
I don't dispute the code paths should be removed, but rather that
removing them shouldn't be a prerequisite for merging it into
mainline.
I went through exactly this same exercise when getting DT to be cross
platform. There was all kinds of stuff that got compiled into
Microblaze, and later ARM that was only applicable for PowerPC. The
refactoring came later and incrementally. It would have been a much
more difficult job if I had to maintain the patches out of tree until
the common code was near perfect. It would have taken a lot longer
too.
>>>> Aside from a slightly larger kernel, there is no downside to using
>>>> stubs for now.
>>>
>>> There is a serious downside - code with _undefined_ behaviour on arm64
>>> that may get executed depending on the content of the ACPI tables. I'm
>>> sure it's a lot of fun debugging this.
>>
>> It's really easy for us to deal with this. For ACPI 5.1, we don't do
>> anything, and we should never try to do anything with those states. If
>> and when a future revision of the ACPI spec appears that does define
>> those states, then we will use them, but only if the reported ACPI
>> version is high enough.
>
> It's the other way around: the reported ACPI version (by firmware) is
> high enough but the kernel code is not updated beyond 5.1 and may run
> the current ARM-undefined ACPI sleep code.
That is fine too. Future ACPI platforms are also to be backwards
compatible. Platforms are not allowed to use new features if the OS
only supports an old rev of the spec.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-10 21:51 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-16 5:29 ` Zheng, Lv
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Zheng, Lv @ 2014-09-16 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely, Catalin Marinas, Hanjun Guo
Cc: jcm, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland, hanjun.guo,
Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Moore,
Robert, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin,
linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Hi,
> From: Grant Likely [mailto:glikely@secretlab.ca] On Behalf Of Grant Likely
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 5:52 AM
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:33:52 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:13:51PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > On 2014/9/10 3:06, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > > On 09/09/2014 02:05 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > >> On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > >>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > >>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > >>>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > > >>>>>>> new file mode 100644
> > > >>>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
> > > >>>>>>> --- /dev/null
> > > >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > > >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > > >>>>>>> +/*
> > > >>>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> > > >>>>>>> + *
> > > >>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> > > >>>>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> > > >>>>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> > > >>>>>>> + *
> > > >>>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > > >>>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > > >>>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > > >>>>>>> + */
> > > >>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> > > >>>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> > > >>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> > > >>>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> > > >>>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> > > >>>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> > > >>>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
> > > >>>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
> > > >>>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
> > > >>>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
> > > >>>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
> > > >>>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
> > > >>>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
> > > >>>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
> > > >>>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
> > > >>>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
> > > >>>> actually report things correctly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
> > > >>> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
> > > >>> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
> > > >>> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
> > > >>> Catalin pointed out.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
> > > >>> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
> > > >>> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
> > > >>> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
> > > >> every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
> > > >> to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:
> > > >>
> > > >> "
> > > >> /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
> > > >> acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);
> > > >> "
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it
> > > >> properly.
> >
> > Agree.
> >
> > > > How do you want to proceed? I'm not sure it should be !HW_REDUCED_MODE
> > > > for the cache behavior, because an embedded x86 box would still probably
> > > > define those, but removing the hooks on ARM may make sense.
> > >
> > > As Graeme said in the reply, for sleep we are doing the same thing as
> > > ia64 in stubbing out the functions,
> >
> > Sorry, that's not really an argument.
> >
> > > and before that we are trying to remove
> > > the hooks on ARM by introducing more stubs and making things more complicated.
> >
> > I still think you can make things simpler by not compiling the code
> > in question because we'll never implement such hooks on arm64, they
> > don't make sense from an architecture perspective (whole cache flushing
> > with MMU enabled cannot be done).
> >
> > > I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
> > > stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
> > > need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
> > > starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
> > >
> > > Now, as we list in the arm-acpi.txt doc, power management of sleep states
> > > and CPU power/frequency control are not well defined in ACPI spec for ARM,
> > > we need some time to finalize the standard and then we know how to implement
> > > that in a good shape.
> > >
> > > ACPI 5.1 already fixed lots missing features for ARM64 and provide the
> > > fundamental needs to bring up the basic system for ARM server, power
> > > management is not critical at now, so why not fix/implement it later?
> >
> > I don't have a problem with implementing (rather than fixing) power
> > management later, once the ACPI spec covers it. But the point a few of
> > us were trying to make is that even when ACPI spec is updated, the
> > current power management code and hooks still won't make sense on ARM.
> > The best is to avoid compiling it for ARM now and look at refactoring it
> > later to accommodate ARM ACPI.
>
> I disagree strongly here. We're talking about a library of code that is
> working on x86 and ia64, but hasn't been tuned for ARM. Trying to
> refactor it first, and then get it compiling for ARM is entirely the
> wrong way around. The best way to get that code refactored for
> ARM is to get it compiling first, and then refactor it to remove the
> unnecessary stubs. That makes it a whole lot easier to make the
> arguements about why the changes are needed. Otherwise it just shows
> churn on the ACPICA side without any evidence of why the change is
> good. Trying to refactor first also has the risk of breaking things
> that work now in the name of "refactoring" and not being able to easily
> bisect it for ARM. That's just madness.
>
> Aside from a slightly larger kernel, there is no downside to using
> stubs for now.
>
> Getting things working is the first step. Then we've got a good base to
> launch the refactoring from.
IMO, it is not a good timing to talk about ACPICA sleep code refactoring.
The current power management code and hooks also don't make sense to Intel platforms.
The proof is the Xen hooks which is currently implemented in the hackish style.
In order to cleanup such Xen hooks, the sleep code need to be refactored.
IMO, you may have things proceeded without doing any changes to the sleep code.
When the power management requirement for ARM is fixed, you can also introduce hackish code to support it.
And from that point, we may be able to provide a well-shaped refactoring work.
Best regards
-Lv
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-10 11:13 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-10 12:33 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-10 21:41 ` Grant Likely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-10 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Jon Masters, Sudeep Holla, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Mark Rutland
Cc: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown,
Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 19:13:51 +0800, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2014/9/10 3:06, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 09/09/2014 02:05 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> >>>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
> >>>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> >>>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> >>>>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> >>>>>>> + *
> >>>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >>>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >>>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> >>>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> >>>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> >>>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> >>>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> >>>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
> >>>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
> >>>>
> >>>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
> >>>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
> >>>>
> >>>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
> >>>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
> >>>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
> >>>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
> >>>>
> >>>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
> >>>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
> >>>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
> >>>>
> >>>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
> >>>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
> >>>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
> >>>> actually report things correctly.
> >>>
> >>> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
> >>> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
> >>> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
> >>> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
> >>> Catalin pointed out.
> >>>
> >>> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
> >>> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
> >>> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
> >>> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
> >> every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
> >> to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:
> >>
> >> "
> >> /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
> >> acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);
> >> "
> >>
> >> I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it
> >> properly.
> >
> > Hanjun,
> >
> > How do you want to proceed? I'm not sure it should be !HW_REDUCED_MODE
> > for the cache behavior, because an embedded x86 box would still probably
> > define those, but removing the hooks on ARM may make sense.
>
> As Graeme said in the reply, for sleep we are doing the same thing as
> ia64 in stubbing out the functions, and before that we are trying to remove
> the hooks on ARM by introducing more stubs and making things more complicated.
>
> I agree that we should rework the ACPI core to make sleep/cache related
> stuff compatible with ARM, but I think we may not do this in one go, it will
> need incremental changes over the next couple of years as real hardware
> starts to appear and we finalise the standards to support this.
Yes, reworking acpica is out of scope for this patch set. I don't think
it makes sense to try and do that refactoring here.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 16:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-09 16:41 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 16:54 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-10 7:30 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-10 21:37 ` Grant Likely
3 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Mark Rutland @ 2014-09-09 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas
Cc: hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Olof Johansson, grant.likely,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Tomasz Nowicki
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:26:49PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..3899ee6
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > +/*
> > + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> > + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> > + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
> > +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
> > +
> > +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>
> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point?
>From what I recall it's impossible to support as we have no equivalent
of WBINVD -- the possibility migration of dirty cache lines renders it
impossible to guarantee that the caches remain empty (or that data even
left the local caches in the first place).
> Looking at the places where this function is called, I don't really
> see how this would ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such
> macro just to be able to compile code that would never be used on
> arm64. I would rather see the relevant ACPI files only compiled on
> x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
Agreed.
It looks like include/acpi/platform/acenv.h defines an empty
ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() stub, so something else should probably be done
to turn the use of ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() into a build-time bug on
arm64.
Mark.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 16:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-09 16:41 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 16:54 ` Mark Rutland
@ 2014-09-10 7:30 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-10 21:37 ` Grant Likely
3 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-10 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Tomasz Nowicki
On 2014/9/10 0:26, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +/*
>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>> +
>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>
> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..9252f72
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>
> [...]
>
>> +/*
>> + * acpi_boot_table_init() called from setup_arch(), always.
>> + * 1. find RSDP and get its address, and then find XSDT
>> + * 2. extract all tables and checksums them all
>> + *
>> + * We can parse ACPI boot-time tables such as MADT after
>> + * this function is called.
>> + */
>> +void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>> +{
>> + /* If acpi_disabled, bail out */
>> + if (acpi_disabled)
>> + return;
>
> So at this point, there wouldn't be anything yet to set acpi_disabled to
> 1, unless !CONFIG_ACPI.
>
>> +
>> + /* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser. */
>> + if (acpi_table_init())
>> + disable_acpi();
>
> Do you need anything more to add to this function later? Otherwise, just
> call it in setup_arch() directly (maybe dependent on
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI) or just create an equivalent dummy
> acpi_table_init() when not configured).
We add FADT parse function to this function later.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> index c96172a..fb7cc0e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
>> #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
>> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
>> #include <linux/efi.h>
>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>
>> #include <asm/fixmap.h>
>> #include <asm/cpu.h>
>> @@ -385,6 +386,9 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>> efi_init();
>> arm64_memblock_init();
>>
>> + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
>> + acpi_boot_table_init();
>
> Is there any dummy acpi_boot_table_init() when !CONFIG_ACPI? I couldn't
> see one in this patch, so I don't see how this would compile when ACPI
> is disabled.
There is a stub function in linux/acpi.h when ACPI is disabled.
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
2014-09-09 16:26 ` Catalin Marinas
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-10 7:30 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-10 21:37 ` Grant Likely
3 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-10 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, hanjun.guo
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown,
Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Tomasz Nowicki
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:26:49 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > index c96172a..fb7cc0e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
> > #include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> > #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > #include <linux/efi.h>
> > +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> >
> > #include <asm/fixmap.h>
> > #include <asm/cpu.h>
> > @@ -385,6 +386,9 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> > efi_init();
> > arm64_memblock_init();
> >
> > + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
> > + acpi_boot_table_init();
>
> Is there any dummy acpi_boot_table_init() when !CONFIG_ACPI? I couldn't
> see one in this patch, so I don't see how this would compile when ACPI
> is disabled.
It's in include/linux/acpi.h in the !CONFIG_ACPI section.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 03/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 01/17] ARM64: Move the init of cpu_logical_map(0) before unflatten_device_tree() Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" Hanjun Guo
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
acpi_wakeup_address is used on x86 as the address bios jumps into
when machine wakes up from suspend. As arm64 does not have such a
bios this mechanism will be provided by other means. But the define
is still required inside the acpi core.
Introduce a null stub for acpi_suspend_lowlevel as this is also
required by core. This will be filled in when standards are
defined for arm64 ACPI global power states.
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 12 ++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 7 +++++++
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index 8b837ab..02bbb0b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -40,6 +40,18 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void)
static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
+/* Low-level suspend routine.
+ *
+ * ACPI S-states for ARM64 have to be defined
+ * and approved before doing anything else, maybe
+ * we need update the ACPI spec, here we
+ * just introduce function and macro needed by
+ * ACPI core as IA64 did, and revisit them when
+ * the spec is ready.
+ */
+extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
+#define acpi_wakeup_address 0
+
#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
#endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index 9252f72..b6940a0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -67,3 +67,10 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
if (acpi_table_init())
disable_acpi();
}
+
+/*
+ * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
+ *
+ * TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend...
+ */
+int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void) = NULL;
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 03/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 03/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-09 22:04 ` Graeme Gregory
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-09 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:41PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>
> acpi_wakeup_address is used on x86 as the address bios jumps into
> when machine wakes up from suspend. As arm64 does not have such a
> bios this mechanism will be provided by other means. But the define
> is still required inside the acpi core.
>
> Introduce a null stub for acpi_suspend_lowlevel as this is also
> required by core. This will be filled in when standards are
> defined for arm64 ACPI global power states.
Do we actually plan to use these on arm64? I'm worried most of these
don't make sense on arm64 (the aim is to use PSCI). Is it possible to
refactor the core code so that we don't have to define dummy macros or
variables just to be able to build the kernel?
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 03/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function
2014-09-09 16:35 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-09 22:04 ` Graeme Gregory
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Graeme Gregory @ 2014-09-09 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Mark Rutland, linaro-acpi, Will Deacon, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore,
linux-acpi, grant.likely, Charles Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter,
Jason Cooper, Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Liviu Dudau,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, graeme.gregory,
Randy Dunlap, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla,
Olof Johansson
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:35:29PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:41PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> >
> > acpi_wakeup_address is used on x86 as the address bios jumps into
> > when machine wakes up from suspend. As arm64 does not have such a
> > bios this mechanism will be provided by other means. But the define
> > is still required inside the acpi core.
> >
> > Introduce a null stub for acpi_suspend_lowlevel as this is also
> > required by core. This will be filled in when standards are
> > defined for arm64 ACPI global power states.
>
> Do we actually plan to use these on arm64? I'm worried most of these
> don't make sense on arm64 (the aim is to use PSCI). Is it possible to
> refactor the core code so that we don't have to define dummy macros or
> variables just to be able to build the kernel?
>
Currently ia64 does the same as this for stubbing out the functions.
We did investigate removing the code but that ultimately ended with more
functions and variables stubbed then this.
Graeme
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 03/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 16:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-09 17:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 05/17] ARM64 / ACPI: If we chose to boot from acpi then disable FDT Hanjun Guo
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Hanjun Guo
From: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
Introduce one early parameters "off" for "acpi" to disable ACPI on
ARM64.
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 ++-
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
index 5ae8608..9dfb1d8 100644
--- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ multipliers 'Kilo', 'Mega', and 'Giga', equalling 2^10, 2^20, and 2^30
bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
- acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86]
+ acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86,ARM]
Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
Format: { force | off | strict | noirq | rsdt }
force -- enable ACPI if default was off
@@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
strictly ACPI specification compliant.
rsdt -- prefer RSDT over (default) XSDT
copy_dsdt -- copy DSDT to memory
+ For ARM64, ONLY "acpi=off" is available.
See also Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt, pci=noacpi
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index b6940a0..9547275 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -74,3 +74,18 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
* TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend...
*/
int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void) = NULL;
+
+static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg)
+{
+ if (!arg)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* "acpi=off" disables both ACPI table parsing and interpreter */
+ if (strcmp(arg, "off") == 0)
+ disable_acpi();
+ else
+ return -EINVAL; /* Core will print when we return error */
+
+ return 0;
+}
+early_param("acpi", parse_acpi);
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 16:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-09 17:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-09 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -74,3 +74,18 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> * TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend...
> */
> int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void) = NULL;
> +
> +static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg)
> +{
> + if (!arg)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* "acpi=off" disables both ACPI table parsing and interpreter */
> + if (strcmp(arg, "off") == 0)
> + disable_acpi();
> + else
> + return -EINVAL; /* Core will print when we return error */
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("acpi", parse_acpi);
I forgot about early param, so there is a way to set acpi_disabled to 1
before populating the tables.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 16:37 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-09 17:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-09-09 22:14 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Helgaas @ 2014-09-09 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely, Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> From: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
>
> Introduce one early parameters "off" for "acpi" to disable ACPI on
> ARM64.
It might be worth mentioning the purpose of this in the changelog (and
maybe the documentation). I don't think this parameter is supported
on ia64, and on x86 it seems like it's mostly used as a "fix" by
Ubuntu users who consider the problem resolved when they find this
parameter. That just means we don't get a chance to fix the real
underlying problem, so I'm not sure it's a real benefit to have the
parameter.
> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> ---
> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 ++-
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> index 5ae8608..9dfb1d8 100644
> --- a/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ multipliers 'Kilo', 'Mega', and 'Giga', equalling 2^10, 2^20, and 2^30
> bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
>
>
> - acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86]
> + acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86,ARM]
> Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
> Format: { force | off | strict | noirq | rsdt }
> force -- enable ACPI if default was off
> @@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
> strictly ACPI specification compliant.
> rsdt -- prefer RSDT over (default) XSDT
> copy_dsdt -- copy DSDT to memory
> + For ARM64, ONLY "acpi=off" is available.
>
> See also Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt, pci=noacpi
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index b6940a0..9547275 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -74,3 +74,18 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> * TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend...
> */
> int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void) = NULL;
> +
> +static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg)
> +{
> + if (!arg)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* "acpi=off" disables both ACPI table parsing and interpreter */
> + if (strcmp(arg, "off") == 0)
> + disable_acpi();
> + else
> + return -EINVAL; /* Core will print when we return error */
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("acpi", parse_acpi);
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-09 17:17 ` Bjorn Helgaas
@ 2014-09-09 22:14 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-10 13:04 ` Will Deacon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas, Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely, Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/09/2014 01:17 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>> From: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
>>
>> Introduce one early parameters "off" for "acpi" to disable ACPI on
>> ARM64.
>
> It might be worth mentioning the purpose of this in the changelog (and
> maybe the documentation). I don't think this parameter is supported
> on ia64, and on x86 it seems like it's mostly used as a "fix" by
> Ubuntu users who consider the problem resolved when they find this
> parameter. That just means we don't get a chance to fix the real
> underlying problem, so I'm not sure it's a real benefit to have the
> parameter.
>> - acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86]
>> + acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86,ARM]
>> Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
>> Format: { force | off | strict | noirq | rsdt }
>> force -- enable ACPI if default was off
>> @@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
>> strictly ACPI specification compliant.
>> rsdt -- prefer RSDT over (default) XSDT
>> copy_dsdt -- copy DSDT to memory
>> + For ARM64, ONLY "acpi=off" is available.
Something along the lines of:
"The purpose of disabling ACPI on 64-bit ARM server platforms is to
allow for an orderly adoption of ACPI on early systems that may also
provide a DeviceTree based boot option initially. The acpi= option
disables both parsing of any tables passed in through the EFI System
Table RSDP and also disables the runtime ACPI interpreter on arm64".
On our internal systems, we've both ACPI and DeviceTree working with a
simple switch (acpi=) to determine the behavior, which is facilitating
an orderly total migration to ACPI that is in currently in flight.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-09 22:14 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-10 13:04 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-10 13:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2014-09-10 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jcm
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:14:58PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 01:17 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> From: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> Introduce one early parameters "off" for "acpi" to disable ACPI on
> >> ARM64.
> >
> > It might be worth mentioning the purpose of this in the changelog (and
> > maybe the documentation). I don't think this parameter is supported
> > on ia64, and on x86 it seems like it's mostly used as a "fix" by
> > Ubuntu users who consider the problem resolved when they find this
> > parameter. That just means we don't get a chance to fix the real
> > underlying problem, so I'm not sure it's a real benefit to have the
> > parameter.
>
> >> - acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86]
> >> + acpi= [HW,ACPI,X86,ARM]
> >> Advanced Configuration and Power Interface
> >> Format: { force | off | strict | noirq | rsdt }
> >> force -- enable ACPI if default was off
> >> @@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ bytes respectively. Such letter suffixes can also be entirely omitted.
> >> strictly ACPI specification compliant.
> >> rsdt -- prefer RSDT over (default) XSDT
> >> copy_dsdt -- copy DSDT to memory
> >> + For ARM64, ONLY "acpi=off" is available.
>
> Something along the lines of:
>
> "The purpose of disabling ACPI on 64-bit ARM server platforms is to
> allow for an orderly adoption of ACPI on early systems that may also
> provide a DeviceTree based boot option initially. The acpi= option
> disables both parsing of any tables passed in through the EFI System
> Table RSDP and also disables the runtime ACPI interpreter on arm64".
Please, let's keep this polarised rhetoric out of the Linux kernel. If ACPI
support gets merged for arm64, then the community has a commitment to
support it alongside devicetree. There isn't a migration path because
nothing is being replaced and we shouldn't dictate to users in which
circumstances they are allowed to use one firmware interface over another.
Other entities (server vendors, distributions, firmware guys, ...) can make
up their own rules, but attempting to peddle their agenda in the upstream
kernel is completely inappropriate.
It's blindingly obvious that acpi=off is there to disable ACPI at boot.
We either support that option or we don't -- none of this `oh, well you
can use it in this specific case I suppose' rubbish. I'm not questioning
your use-case, but there's really no need to talk about an `orderly
adoption' when all you need to say is that your ACPI is busted and passing
acpi=off lets you boot with a devicetree.
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but it's really important not to get the upstream
messaging wrong about ACPI. Devicetree is absolutely *not* going away and
people can choose to use whatever they prefer, however they prefer to use
it.
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-10 13:04 ` Will Deacon
@ 2014-09-10 13:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-09-10 18:30 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-10 21:58 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Bjorn Helgaas @ 2014-09-10 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: jcm, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> It's blindingly obvious that acpi=off is there to disable ACPI at boot.
> We either support that option or we don't -- none of this `oh, well you
> can use it in this specific case I suppose' rubbish. I'm not questioning
> your use-case, but there's really no need to talk about an `orderly
> adoption' when all you need to say is that your ACPI is busted and passing
> acpi=off lets you boot with a devicetree.
Maybe we should set a taint bit or give some other indication that
we're using a flag to work around breakage.
There's a big difference between parameters like "root=", "console=",
"quiet", etc., and the ones like "pci=nocrs", "pci=realloc",
"acpi=off". The latter are basically workarounds for deficiencies in
Linux or the platform, and we should try really hard to minimize their
use. We might need some of them as interim workarounds, but I don't
think we should regard their use as acceptable standard practice for
end users.
Bjorn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-10 13:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
@ 2014-09-10 18:30 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-10 21:58 ` Grant Likely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2014-09-10 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas
Cc: jcm, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 02:21:59PM +0100, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > It's blindingly obvious that acpi=off is there to disable ACPI at boot.
> > We either support that option or we don't -- none of this `oh, well you
> > can use it in this specific case I suppose' rubbish. I'm not questioning
> > your use-case, but there's really no need to talk about an `orderly
> > adoption' when all you need to say is that your ACPI is busted and passing
> > acpi=off lets you boot with a devicetree.
>
> Maybe we should set a taint bit or give some other indication that
> we're using a flag to work around breakage.
That sounds like a good idea. Working around breakage is a fact of life,
but the taint indicates that it's not the ideal behaviour.
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
2014-09-10 13:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2014-09-10 18:30 ` Will Deacon
@ 2014-09-10 21:58 ` Grant Likely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-10 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bjorn Helgaas, Will Deacon
Cc: jcm, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 07:21:59 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > It's blindingly obvious that acpi=off is there to disable ACPI at boot.
> > We either support that option or we don't -- none of this `oh, well you
> > can use it in this specific case I suppose' rubbish. I'm not questioning
> > your use-case, but there's really no need to talk about an `orderly
> > adoption' when all you need to say is that your ACPI is busted and passing
> > acpi=off lets you boot with a devicetree.
>
> Maybe we should set a taint bit or give some other indication that
> we're using a flag to work around breakage.
Nope. No taint. Maybe a log message, but there are perfectly valid
reasons to use acpi=off, such as the user has a DT for the hardware
that moves all the PM operations into the kernel-proper to tune for a
very specific use case. This moves outside the support envelope, but
that doesn't make it a bad thing or the wrong thing to do.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 05/17] ARM64 / ACPI: If we chose to boot from acpi then disable FDT
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 04/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi" Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64 Hanjun Guo
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
If the early boot methods of acpi are happy that we have valid ACPI
tables and acpi=off has not been passed. Then do not unflat
devicetree effectively disabling further hardware probing from DT.
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index fb7cc0e..ba181ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -395,7 +395,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
efi_idmap_init();
cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK;
- unflatten_device_tree();
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ unflatten_device_tree();
psci_init();
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 05/17] ARM64 / ACPI: If we chose to boot from acpi then disable FDT Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 07/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI flags for PSCI init Hanjun Guo
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
As PCI for ARM64 is not ready, so introduce some stub functions
to make PCI optional for ACPI, and make ACPI core run without
CONFIG_PCI on ARM64.
Since ACPI on X86 and IA64 depends on PCI and this patch only makes
PCI optional for ARM64, it will not break anything on X86 and IA64.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h | 11 +++++++++++
drivers/acpi/Makefile | 2 +-
drivers/acpi/internal.h | 5 +++++
include/linux/pci.h | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..250cd24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+#ifndef __ASM_PCI_H
+#define __ASM_PCI_H
+#ifdef __KERNEL__
+
+/*
+ * PCI address space differs from physical memory address space
+ */
+#define PCI_DMA_BUS_IS_PHYS (0)
+
+#endif /* __KERNEL__ */
+#endif /* __ASM_PCI_H */
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
index 505d4d7..8e9bbe6 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ acpi-y += processor_core.o
acpi-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_ACPI_PDC) += processor_pdc.o
acpi-y += ec.o
acpi-$(CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK) += dock.o
-acpi-y += pci_root.o pci_link.o pci_irq.o
+acpi-$(CONFIG_PCI) += pci_root.o pci_link.o pci_irq.o
acpi-y += acpi_lpss.o
acpi-y += acpi_platform.o
acpi-y += acpi_pnp.o
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/internal.h b/drivers/acpi/internal.h
index 4c5cf77..e1e6487 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/internal.h
+++ b/drivers/acpi/internal.h
@@ -26,8 +26,13 @@
acpi_status acpi_os_initialize1(void);
int init_acpi_device_notify(void);
int acpi_scan_init(void);
+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
void acpi_pci_root_init(void);
void acpi_pci_link_init(void);
+#else
+static inline void acpi_pci_root_init(void) {}
+static inline void acpi_pci_link_init(void) {}
+#endif
void acpi_processor_init(void);
void acpi_platform_init(void);
void acpi_pnp_init(void);
diff --git a/include/linux/pci.h b/include/linux/pci.h
index 61978a4..50fa750 100644
--- a/include/linux/pci.h
+++ b/include/linux/pci.h
@@ -558,15 +558,6 @@ struct pci_ops {
int (*write)(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn, int where, int size, u32 val);
};
-/*
- * ACPI needs to be able to access PCI config space before we've done a
- * PCI bus scan and created pci_bus structures.
- */
-int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
- int reg, int len, u32 *val);
-int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
- int reg, int len, u32 val);
-
struct pci_bus_region {
dma_addr_t start;
dma_addr_t end;
@@ -1293,6 +1284,16 @@ typedef int (*arch_set_vga_state_t)(struct pci_dev *pdev, bool decode,
unsigned int command_bits, u32 flags);
void pci_register_set_vga_state(arch_set_vga_state_t func);
+/*
+ * ACPI needs to be able to access PCI config space before we've done a
+ * PCI bus scan and created pci_bus structures.
+ */
+int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
+ int reg, int len, u32 *val);
+int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
+ int reg, int len, u32 val);
+void pcibios_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
+
#else /* CONFIG_PCI is not enabled */
/*
@@ -1394,6 +1395,23 @@ static inline struct pci_dev *pci_get_bus_and_slot(unsigned int bus,
unsigned int devfn)
{ return NULL; }
+static inline struct pci_bus *pci_find_bus(int domain, int busnr)
+{ return NULL; }
+
+static inline int pci_bus_write_config_byte(struct pci_bus *bus,
+ unsigned int devfn, int where, u8 val)
+{ return -ENOSYS; }
+
+static inline int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus,
+ unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 *val)
+{ return -ENOSYS; }
+
+static inline int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus,
+ unsigned int devfn, int reg, int len, u32 val)
+{ return -ENOSYS; }
+
+static inline void pcibios_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active) { }
+
static inline int pci_domain_nr(struct pci_bus *bus) { return 0; }
static inline struct pci_dev *pci_dev_get(struct pci_dev *dev) { return NULL; }
@@ -1607,7 +1625,6 @@ int pcibios_set_pcie_reset_state(struct pci_dev *dev,
enum pcie_reset_state state);
int pcibios_add_device(struct pci_dev *dev);
void pcibios_release_device(struct pci_dev *dev);
-void pcibios_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active);
#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATE_CALLBACKS
extern struct dev_pm_ops pcibios_pm_ops;
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 07/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI flags for PSCI init
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 06/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64 Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 08/17] ACPI / table: Print GIC information when MADT is parsed Hanjun Guo
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo, Tomasz Nowicki
There are two flags: PSCI_COMPLIANT and PSCI_USE_HVC. When set,
the former signals to the OS that the firmware is PSCI compliant.
The latter selects the appropriate conduit for PSCI calls by
toggling between Hypervisor Calls (HVC) and Secure Monitor Calls
(SMC).
FADT table contains such information, parse FADT to get the flags
for PSCI init. Since ACPI 5.1 doesn't support self defined PSCI
function IDs, which means that only PSCI 0.2+ is supported in ACPI.
At the same time, only ACPI 5.1 or higher verison supports PSCI,
and FADT Major.Minor version was introduced in ACPI 5.1, so we
will check the version and only parse FADT table with version >= 5.1.
If firmware provides ACPI tables with ACPI version less than 5.1,
OS will be messed up with those information and have no way to init
smp and GIC, so disable ACPI if we get an FADT table with version
less that 5.1.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 17 +++++++++
arch/arm64/include/asm/psci.h | 3 +-
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 31 +++++++++++++++-
arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 8 +++--
5 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index 02bbb0b..620057c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -19,6 +19,18 @@ extern int acpi_disabled;
extern int acpi_noirq;
extern int acpi_pci_disabled;
+/* 1 to indicate PSCI 0.2+ is implemented */
+static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void)
+{
+ return acpi_gbl_FADT.arm_boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_PSCI_COMPLIANT;
+}
+
+/* 1 to indicate HVC must be used instead of SMC as the PSCI conduit */
+static inline bool acpi_psci_use_hvc(void)
+{
+ return acpi_gbl_FADT.arm_boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_PSCI_USE_HVC;
+}
+
static inline void disable_acpi(void)
{
acpi_disabled = 1;
@@ -52,6 +64,11 @@ static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
#define acpi_wakeup_address 0
+#else
+
+static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
+static inline bool acpi_psci_use_hvc(void) { return false; }
+
#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
#endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/psci.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/psci.h
index e5312ea..2454bc5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/psci.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/psci.h
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
#ifndef __ASM_PSCI_H
#define __ASM_PSCI_H
-int psci_init(void);
+int psci_dt_init(void);
+int psci_acpi_init(void);
#endif /* __ASM_PSCI_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index 9547275..470570c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
+#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI: " fmt
+
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <linux/cpumask.h>
@@ -49,10 +51,32 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size)
early_memunmap(map, size);
}
+static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table)
+{
+ struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt *)table;
+
+ /*
+ * Revision in table header is the FADT Major revision,
+ * and there is a minor revision of FADT which was introduced
+ * by ACPI 5.1, we only deal with ACPI 5.1 or higher revision
+ * to get arm boot flags, or we will disable ACPI.
+ */
+ if (table->revision > 5 ||
+ (table->revision == 5 && fadt->minor_revision >= 1))
+ return 0;
+
+ pr_warn("Unsupported FADT revision %d.%d, should be 5.1+, will disable ACPI\n",
+ table->revision, fadt->minor_revision);
+ disable_acpi();
+
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
+
/*
* acpi_boot_table_init() called from setup_arch(), always.
* 1. find RSDP and get its address, and then find XSDT
* 2. extract all tables and checksums them all
+ * 3. check ACPI FADT revisoin
*
* We can parse ACPI boot-time tables such as MADT after
* this function is called.
@@ -64,8 +88,13 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
return;
/* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser. */
- if (acpi_table_init())
+ if (acpi_table_init()) {
disable_acpi();
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt))
+ pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
}
/*
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
index 5539547..15ba470 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
#define pr_fmt(fmt) "psci: " fmt
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
@@ -23,6 +24,7 @@
#include <linux/delay.h>
#include <uapi/linux/psci.h>
+#include <asm/acpi.h>
#include <asm/compiler.h>
#include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
#include <asm/errno.h>
@@ -231,6 +233,33 @@ static void psci_sys_poweroff(void)
invoke_psci_fn(PSCI_0_2_FN_SYSTEM_OFF, 0, 0, 0);
}
+static void psci_0_2_set_functions(void)
+{
+ pr_info("Using standard PSCI v0.2 function IDs\n");
+ psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_CPU_SUSPEND;
+ psci_ops.cpu_suspend = psci_cpu_suspend;
+
+ psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_CPU_OFF] = PSCI_0_2_FN_CPU_OFF;
+ psci_ops.cpu_off = psci_cpu_off;
+
+ psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_CPU_ON] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_CPU_ON;
+ psci_ops.cpu_on = psci_cpu_on;
+
+ psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_MIGRATE] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_MIGRATE;
+ psci_ops.migrate = psci_migrate;
+
+ psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_AFFINITY_INFO] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_AFFINITY_INFO;
+ psci_ops.affinity_info = psci_affinity_info;
+
+ psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE] =
+ PSCI_0_2_FN_MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE;
+ psci_ops.migrate_info_type = psci_migrate_info_type;
+
+ arm_pm_restart = psci_sys_reset;
+
+ pm_power_off = psci_sys_poweroff;
+}
+
/*
* PSCI Function IDs for v0.2+ are well defined so use
* standard values.
@@ -264,29 +293,7 @@ static int __init psci_0_2_init(struct device_node *np)
}
}
- pr_info("Using standard PSCI v0.2 function IDs\n");
- psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_CPU_SUSPEND;
- psci_ops.cpu_suspend = psci_cpu_suspend;
-
- psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_CPU_OFF] = PSCI_0_2_FN_CPU_OFF;
- psci_ops.cpu_off = psci_cpu_off;
-
- psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_CPU_ON] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_CPU_ON;
- psci_ops.cpu_on = psci_cpu_on;
-
- psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_MIGRATE] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_MIGRATE;
- psci_ops.migrate = psci_migrate;
-
- psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_AFFINITY_INFO] = PSCI_0_2_FN64_AFFINITY_INFO;
- psci_ops.affinity_info = psci_affinity_info;
-
- psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE] =
- PSCI_0_2_FN_MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE;
- psci_ops.migrate_info_type = psci_migrate_info_type;
-
- arm_pm_restart = psci_sys_reset;
-
- pm_power_off = psci_sys_poweroff;
+ psci_0_2_set_functions();
out_put_node:
of_node_put(np);
@@ -339,7 +346,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id psci_of_match[] __initconst = {
{},
};
-int __init psci_init(void)
+int __init psci_dt_init(void)
{
struct device_node *np;
const struct of_device_id *matched_np;
@@ -354,6 +361,29 @@ int __init psci_init(void)
return init_fn(np);
}
+/*
+ * We use PSCI 0.2+ when ACPI is deployed on ARM64 and it's
+ * explicitly clarified in SBBR
+ */
+int __init psci_acpi_init(void)
+{
+ if (!acpi_psci_present()) {
+ pr_info("is not implemented in ACPI.\n");
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ }
+
+ pr_info("probing for conduit method from ACPI.\n");
+
+ if (acpi_psci_use_hvc())
+ invoke_psci_fn = __invoke_psci_fn_hvc;
+ else
+ invoke_psci_fn = __invoke_psci_fn_smc;
+
+ psci_0_2_set_functions();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
static int __init cpu_psci_cpu_init(struct device_node *dn, unsigned int cpu)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index ba181ba..ac9ec55 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -395,10 +395,12 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
efi_idmap_init();
cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK;
- if (acpi_disabled)
+ if (acpi_disabled) {
unflatten_device_tree();
-
- psci_init();
+ psci_dt_init();
+ } else {
+ psci_acpi_init();
+ }
cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 08/17] ACPI / table: Print GIC information when MADT is parsed
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 07/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI flags for PSCI init Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization Hanjun Guo
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo, Tomasz Nowicki
When MADT is parsed, print GIC information to make the boot
log look pretty.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
---
drivers/acpi/tables.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
index 6d5a6cd..a97d2aa 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
@@ -183,6 +183,49 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header)
}
break;
+ case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT:
+ {
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *p =
+ (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
+ pr_info("GICC (acpi_id[0x%04x] address[%p] MPDIR[0x%llx] %s)\n",
+ p->uid, (void *)(unsigned long)p->base_address,
+ p->arm_mpidr,
+ (p->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) ? "enabled" : "disabled");
+
+ }
+ break;
+
+ case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR:
+ {
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *p =
+ (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
+ pr_info("GIC Distributor (gic_id[0x%04x] address[%p] gsi_base[%d])\n",
+ p->gic_id,
+ (void *)(unsigned long)p->base_address,
+ p->global_irq_base);
+ }
+ break;
+
+ case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_MSI_FRAME:
+ {
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_msi_frame *p =
+ (struct acpi_madt_generic_msi_frame *)header;
+ pr_info("GIC MSI Frame (msi_fame_id[%d] address[%p])\n",
+ p->msi_frame_id,
+ (void *)(unsigned long)p->base_address);
+ }
+ break;
+
+ case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_REDISTRIBUTOR:
+ {
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_redistributor *p =
+ (struct acpi_madt_generic_redistributor *)header;
+ pr_info("GIC Redistributor (address[%p] region_size[0x%x])\n",
+ (void *)(unsigned long)p->base_address,
+ p->length);
+ }
+ break;
+
default:
pr_warn("Found unsupported MADT entry (type = 0x%x)\n",
header->type);
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 08/17] ACPI / table: Print GIC information when MADT is parsed Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-03 17:21 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
` (2 more replies)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 10/17] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC Hanjun Guo
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 3 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo, Tomasz Nowicki
MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 4 ++
arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h | 5 +-
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c | 4 +-
arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 8 ++-
arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
7 files changed, 161 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index 620057c..e013dbb 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void)
}
static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
+void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
/* Low-level suspend routine.
*
@@ -64,10 +65,13 @@ static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
#define acpi_wakeup_address 0
+#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
+
#else
static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
static inline bool acpi_psci_use_hvc(void) { return false; }
+static inline void acpi_smp_init_cpus(void) { }
#endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h
index d7b4b38..d149580 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct cpu_operations {
};
extern const struct cpu_operations *cpu_ops[NR_CPUS];
+const struct cpu_operations *cpu_get_ops(const char *name);
extern int __init cpu_read_ops(struct device_node *dn, int cpu);
extern void __init cpu_read_bootcpu_ops(void);
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
index a498f2c..c877adc 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
@@ -39,9 +39,10 @@ extern void show_ipi_list(struct seq_file *p, int prec);
extern void handle_IPI(int ipinr, struct pt_regs *regs);
/*
- * Setup the set of possible CPUs (via set_cpu_possible)
+ * Discover the set of possible CPUs and determine their
+ * SMP operations.
*/
-extern void smp_init_cpus(void);
+extern void of_smp_init_cpus(void);
/*
* Provide a function to raise an IPI cross call on CPUs in callmap.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index 470570c..fbaaf01 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
+#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
+#include <asm/cputype.h>
+#include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
+
int acpi_noirq; /* skip ACPI IRQ initialization */
int acpi_disabled;
EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
@@ -31,6 +35,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
int acpi_pci_disabled; /* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */
EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
+static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
+
/*
* __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
* or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
@@ -51,6 +57,144 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size)
early_memunmap(map, size);
}
+/**
+ * acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface - generates a logical cpu number
+ * and map to MPIDR represented by GICC structure
+ * @mpidr: CPU's hardware id to register, MPIDR represented in MADT
+ * @enabled: this cpu is enabled or not
+ *
+ * Returns the logical cpu number which maps to MPIDR
+ */
+static int acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(u64 mpidr, u8 enabled)
+{
+ int cpu;
+
+ if (mpidr == INVALID_HWID) {
+ pr_info("Skip invalid cpu hardware ID\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ total_cpus++;
+ if (!enabled)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
+ pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
+ NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ /* No need to check duplicate MPIDRs for the first CPU */
+ if (enabled_cpus) {
+ /*
+ * Duplicate MPIDRs are a recipe for disaster. Scan
+ * all initialized entries and check for
+ * duplicates. If any is found just ignore the CPU.
+ */
+ for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+ if (cpu_logical_map(cpu) == mpidr) {
+ pr_err("Firmware bug, duplicate CPU MPIDR: 0x%llx in MADT\n",
+ mpidr);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ }
+ } else {
+ /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
+ if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
+ pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
+ mpidr);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* allocate a logical cpu id for the new comer */
+ if (cpu_logical_map(0) == mpidr) {
+ /*
+ * boot_cpu_init() already hold bit 0 in cpu_present_mask
+ * for BSP, no need to allocate again.
+ */
+ cpu = 0;
+ } else {
+ cpu = cpumask_next_zero(-1, cpu_possible_mask);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
+ * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
+ * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
+ * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
+ * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
+ */
+ if (!acpi_psci_present()) {
+ pr_warn("CPU %d has no PSCI support, will not boot\n", cpu);
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+ }
+
+ /* Get cpu_ops include the boot CPU */
+ cpu_ops[cpu] = cpu_get_ops("psci");
+ if (!cpu_ops[cpu])
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
+ if (cpu) {
+ if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
+ /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
+ cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
+
+ set_cpu_possible(cpu, true);
+ }
+
+ enabled_cpus++;
+ return cpu;
+}
+
+static int __init
+acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
+ const unsigned long end)
+{
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
+
+ processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
+
+ if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header);
+
+ acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
+ processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* Parse GIC cpu interface entries in MADT for SMP init */
+void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
+{
+ int count;
+
+ /*
+ * do a partial walk of MADT to determine how many CPUs
+ * we have including disabled CPUs, and get information
+ * we need for SMP init
+ */
+ count = acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
+ acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface,
+ ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
+
+ if (!count) {
+ pr_err("No GIC CPU interface entries present\n");
+ return;
+ } else if (count < 0) {
+ pr_err("Error parsing GIC CPU interface entry\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /* Make boot-up look pretty */
+ pr_info("%d CPUs enabled, %d CPUs total\n", enabled_cpus, total_cpus);
+}
+
static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table)
{
struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt *)table;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c
index cce9524..1a04deb 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ extern const struct cpu_operations cpu_psci_ops;
const struct cpu_operations *cpu_ops[NR_CPUS];
-static const struct cpu_operations *supported_cpu_ops[] __initconst = {
+static const struct cpu_operations *supported_cpu_ops[] = {
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
&smp_spin_table_ops,
#endif
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static const struct cpu_operations *supported_cpu_ops[] __initconst = {
NULL,
};
-static const struct cpu_operations * __init cpu_get_ops(const char *name)
+const struct cpu_operations *cpu_get_ops(const char *name)
{
const struct cpu_operations **ops = supported_cpu_ops;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index ac9ec55..a45ceb3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@
#include <asm/memblock.h>
#include <asm/psci.h>
#include <asm/efi.h>
+#include <asm/acpi.h>
unsigned int processor_id;
EXPORT_SYMBOL(processor_id);
@@ -398,13 +399,16 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
if (acpi_disabled) {
unflatten_device_tree();
psci_dt_init();
+ cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ of_smp_init_cpus();
+#endif
} else {
psci_acpi_init();
+ acpi_smp_init_cpus();
}
- cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- smp_init_cpus();
smp_build_mpidr_hash();
#endif
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
index 4743397..4e390ac 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
@@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ void __init smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
* cpu logical map array containing MPIDR values related to logical
* cpus. Assumes that cpu_logical_map(0) has already been initialized.
*/
-void __init smp_init_cpus(void)
+void __init of_smp_init_cpus(void)
{
struct device_node *dn = NULL;
unsigned int i, cpu = 1;
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-03 17:21 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-04 15:29 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 4:23 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-11 10:24 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2014-09-03 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Tomasz Nowicki
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:47PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>
> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 4 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h | 5 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c | 4 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 8 ++-
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
> 7 files changed, 161 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> index 620057c..e013dbb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void)
> }
>
> static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
> +void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>
> /* Low-level suspend routine.
> *
> @@ -64,10 +65,13 @@ static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>
> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
> +
> #else
>
> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
> static inline bool acpi_psci_use_hvc(void) { return false; }
> +static inline void acpi_smp_init_cpus(void) { }
>
> #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h
> index d7b4b38..d149580 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h
> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct cpu_operations {
> };
>
> extern const struct cpu_operations *cpu_ops[NR_CPUS];
> +const struct cpu_operations *cpu_get_ops(const char *name);
> extern int __init cpu_read_ops(struct device_node *dn, int cpu);
> extern void __init cpu_read_bootcpu_ops(void);
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> index a498f2c..c877adc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h
> @@ -39,9 +39,10 @@ extern void show_ipi_list(struct seq_file *p, int prec);
> extern void handle_IPI(int ipinr, struct pt_regs *regs);
>
> /*
> - * Setup the set of possible CPUs (via set_cpu_possible)
> + * Discover the set of possible CPUs and determine their
> + * SMP operations.
> */
> -extern void smp_init_cpus(void);
> +extern void of_smp_init_cpus(void);
>
> /*
> * Provide a function to raise an IPI cross call on CPUs in callmap.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 470570c..fbaaf01 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
>
> +#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
> +#include <asm/cputype.h>
> +#include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> +
> int acpi_noirq; /* skip ACPI IRQ initialization */
> int acpi_disabled;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
> @@ -31,6 +35,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
> int acpi_pci_disabled; /* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
>
> +static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
Will this be ever different from (num_possible_cpus() - 1) ?
> +
> /*
> * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
> * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
> @@ -51,6 +57,144 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size)
> early_memunmap(map, size);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface - generates a logical cpu number
> + * and map to MPIDR represented by GICC structure
> + * @mpidr: CPU's hardware id to register, MPIDR represented in MADT
> + * @enabled: this cpu is enabled or not
> + *
> + * Returns the logical cpu number which maps to MPIDR
> + */
> +static int acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(u64 mpidr, u8 enabled)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (mpidr == INVALID_HWID) {
> + pr_info("Skip invalid cpu hardware ID\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + total_cpus++;
What's this used for ?
> + if (!enabled)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
> + pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
> + NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* No need to check duplicate MPIDRs for the first CPU */
> + if (enabled_cpus) {
> + /*
> + * Duplicate MPIDRs are a recipe for disaster. Scan
> + * all initialized entries and check for
> + * duplicates. If any is found just ignore the CPU.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu_logical_map(cpu) == mpidr) {
> + pr_err("Firmware bug, duplicate CPU MPIDR: 0x%llx in MADT\n",
> + mpidr);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
s/Fist/First/
> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
> + mpidr);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
> + }
> +
> + /* allocate a logical cpu id for the new comer */
> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) == mpidr) {
> + /*
> + * boot_cpu_init() already hold bit 0 in cpu_present_mask
> + * for BSP, no need to allocate again.
> + */
> + cpu = 0;
> + } else {
> + cpu = cpumask_next_zero(-1, cpu_possible_mask);
> + }
You may use a ternary operator, more compact and clearer.
BTW you seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you keep a
counter for enabled_cpus, and then use cpu_possible_mask to allocate
a logical cpu id. Make a decision, either you use a counter or you
use cpu_possible_mask and its bitweight.
> + /*
> + * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
> + * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
> + * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
> + * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
> + * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
> + */
> + if (!acpi_psci_present()) {
> + pr_warn("CPU %d has no PSCI support, will not boot\n", cpu);
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
This check really does not belong here. You do not even start parsing the gic
cpu interfaces if psci is missing or I am missing something myself. Anyway,
this check must not be in this function.
> +
> + /* Get cpu_ops include the boot CPU */
> + cpu_ops[cpu] = cpu_get_ops("psci");
> + if (!cpu_ops[cpu])
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
> + if (cpu) {
> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
> +
> + set_cpu_possible(cpu, true);
> + }
> +
> + enabled_cpus++;
See above to me enabled_cpus and (num_possible_cpus() - 1) are identical.
> + return cpu;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init
> +acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
> + const unsigned long end)
> +{
> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
> +
> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
> +
> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header);
> +
> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
Ehm. You must check the return value here right (and return an error if
that's an error, otherwise the count value below can be botched ?!).
Or you do not consider a parsing error as an error and want to keep
parsing remaining GIC CPU IF entries ?
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* Parse GIC cpu interface entries in MADT for SMP init */
> +void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
> +{
> + int count;
> +
> + /*
> + * do a partial walk of MADT to determine how many CPUs
> + * we have including disabled CPUs, and get information
> + * we need for SMP init
> + */
> + count = acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
> + acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface,
> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
> +
> + if (!count) {
> + pr_err("No GIC CPU interface entries present\n");
> + return;
> + } else if (count < 0) {
> + pr_err("Error parsing GIC CPU interface entry\n");
> + return;
> + }
What would you consider an error ? A single GIC CPU IF entry error ?
Thanks,
Lorenzo
> + /* Make boot-up look pretty */
> + pr_info("%d CPUs enabled, %d CPUs total\n", enabled_cpus, total_cpus);
> +}
> +
> static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> {
> struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt *)table;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c
> index cce9524..1a04deb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ extern const struct cpu_operations cpu_psci_ops;
>
> const struct cpu_operations *cpu_ops[NR_CPUS];
>
> -static const struct cpu_operations *supported_cpu_ops[] __initconst = {
> +static const struct cpu_operations *supported_cpu_ops[] = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> &smp_spin_table_ops,
> #endif
> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static const struct cpu_operations *supported_cpu_ops[] __initconst = {
> NULL,
> };
>
> -static const struct cpu_operations * __init cpu_get_ops(const char *name)
> +const struct cpu_operations *cpu_get_ops(const char *name)
> {
> const struct cpu_operations **ops = supported_cpu_ops;
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> index ac9ec55..a45ceb3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@
> #include <asm/memblock.h>
> #include <asm/psci.h>
> #include <asm/efi.h>
> +#include <asm/acpi.h>
>
> unsigned int processor_id;
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(processor_id);
> @@ -398,13 +399,16 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> if (acpi_disabled) {
> unflatten_device_tree();
> psci_dt_init();
> + cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + of_smp_init_cpus();
> +#endif
> } else {
> psci_acpi_init();
> + acpi_smp_init_cpus();
> }
>
> - cpu_read_bootcpu_ops();
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> - smp_init_cpus();
> smp_build_mpidr_hash();
> #endif
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> index 4743397..4e390ac 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ void __init smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
> * cpu logical map array containing MPIDR values related to logical
> * cpus. Assumes that cpu_logical_map(0) has already been initialized.
> */
> -void __init smp_init_cpus(void)
> +void __init of_smp_init_cpus(void)
> {
> struct device_node *dn = NULL;
> unsigned int i, cpu = 1;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-03 17:21 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2014-09-04 15:29 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 4:29 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 16:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-04 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Tomasz Nowicki
Hi Lorenzo,
On 2014年09月04日 01:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:47PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
>> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
>> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
>> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>>
>> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
>> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
>> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
>> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
[...]
>> int acpi_noirq; /* skip ACPI IRQ initialization */
>> int acpi_disabled;
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
>> @@ -31,6 +35,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
>> int acpi_pci_disabled; /* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
>>
>> +static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
> Will this be ever different from (num_possible_cpus() - 1) ?
Yes, num_possible_cpus() will much more than enabled cpus
in MADT, when ACPI based CPU hot plug is introduced, you can refer
to the code in x86.
>
>> +
>> /*
>> * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
>> * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
>> @@ -51,6 +57,144 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size)
>> early_memunmap(map, size);
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface - generates a logical cpu number
>> + * and map to MPIDR represented by GICC structure
>> + * @mpidr: CPU's hardware id to register, MPIDR represented in MADT
>> + * @enabled: this cpu is enabled or not
>> + *
>> + * Returns the logical cpu number which maps to MPIDR
>> + */
>> +static int acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(u64 mpidr, u8 enabled)
>> +{
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + if (mpidr == INVALID_HWID) {
>> + pr_info("Skip invalid cpu hardware ID\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + total_cpus++;
> What's this used for ?
It is for all the CPU entries in MADT table, it is used to let
people know how many CPUs in MADT (enabled and disabled).
>
>> + if (!enabled)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
>> + pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
>> + NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* No need to check duplicate MPIDRs for the first CPU */
>> + if (enabled_cpus) {
>> + /*
>> + * Duplicate MPIDRs are a recipe for disaster. Scan
>> + * all initialized entries and check for
>> + * duplicates. If any is found just ignore the CPU.
>> + */
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + if (cpu_logical_map(cpu) == mpidr) {
>> + pr_err("Firmware bug, duplicate CPU MPIDR: 0x%llx in MADT\n",
>> + mpidr);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
> s/Fist/First/
>
>> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
>> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
>> + mpidr);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
> Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
> recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
No, you needn't. there is a logic problem here, we just need to print
some message here and continue, OS will still ok with that.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* allocate a logical cpu id for the new comer */
>> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) == mpidr) {
>> + /*
>> + * boot_cpu_init() already hold bit 0 in cpu_present_mask
>> + * for BSP, no need to allocate again.
>> + */
>> + cpu = 0;
>> + } else {
>> + cpu = cpumask_next_zero(-1, cpu_possible_mask);
>> + }
> You may use a ternary operator, more compact and clearer.
>
> BTW you seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you keep a
> counter for enabled_cpus, and then use cpu_possible_mask to allocate
> a logical cpu id. Make a decision, either you use a counter or you
> use cpu_possible_mask and its bitweight.
ok.
>
>> + /*
>> + * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
>> + * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
>> + * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
>> + * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
>> + * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>> + */
>> + if (!acpi_psci_present()) {
>> + pr_warn("CPU %d has no PSCI support, will not boot\n", cpu);
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> + }
> This check really does not belong here. You do not even start parsing the gic
> cpu interfaces if psci is missing or I am missing something myself. Anyway,
> this check must not be in this function.
I agree with you, i will update the patch.
>
>> +
>> + /* Get cpu_ops include the boot CPU */
>> + cpu_ops[cpu] = cpu_get_ops("psci");
>> + if (!cpu_ops[cpu])
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>> + if (cpu) {
>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
>> +
>> + set_cpu_possible(cpu, true);
>> + }
>> +
>> + enabled_cpus++;
> See above to me enabled_cpus and (num_possible_cpus() - 1) are identical.
I think I need to remove all the CPU hotplug related code and make this function
as simple as possible and introduce them when needed.
>
>> + return cpu;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int __init
>> +acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>> + const unsigned long end)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>> +
>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>> +
>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header);
>> +
>> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
>> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
> Ehm. You must check the return value here right (and return an error if
> that's an error, otherwise the count value below can be botched ?!).
>
> Or you do not consider a parsing error as an error and want to keep
> parsing remaining GIC CPU IF entries ?
yes, this is my intension. we can skip the error ones and boot
other CPUs which have no errors.
>
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Parse GIC cpu interface entries in MADT for SMP init */
>> +void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
>> +{
>> + int count;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * do a partial walk of MADT to determine how many CPUs
>> + * we have including disabled CPUs, and get information
>> + * we need for SMP init
>> + */
>> + count = acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>> + acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface,
>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>> +
>> + if (!count) {
>> + pr_err("No GIC CPU interface entries present\n");
>> + return;
>> + } else if (count < 0) {
>> + pr_err("Error parsing GIC CPU interface entry\n");
>> + return;
>> + }
> What would you consider an error ? A single GIC CPU IF entry error ?
could you please explain it in detail? I can't catch up with you, my apologizes.
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-04 15:29 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 4:29 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 5:11 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 16:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Lorenzo Pieralisi
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
Hi Hanjun, Lorenzo,
Resending due to my mail client removing list CCs...sorry about that.
On 09/04/2014 11:29 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> + } else {
>>> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
>> s/Fist/First/
>>
>>> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
>>> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
>>> + mpidr);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>> Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
>> recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
Well, the ACPI5.1 specification does require that the PEs (cores) be
listed in a very specific order, with the boot CPU first, and then a
precisely defined sequence of interleaving of any possible SMT threads
with other cores. So I think you would in practice update your tables.
>>> + /*
>>> + * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
>>> + * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
>>> + * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
>>> + * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
>>> + * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>> + */
The Parking Protocol may be updated for a (limited) number of platforms
that may use it in the early days. The preferred option (as described in
the SBBR) is to use PSCI when at all possible. Some implementations of
the architecture may not be able to use PSCI for MP-Boot. Thus while
there may be some limited early use of the parking protocol (including
while PSCI firmware is being finalized during bringup activities), it
will ultimately be completely replaced by PSCI based boot over time.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 4:29 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 5:11 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 5:34 ` Jon Masters
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-09 5:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Masters
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown,
Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On 2014年09月09日 12:29, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi Hanjun, Lorenzo,
Hi Jon,
>
> Resending due to my mail client removing list CCs...sorry about that.
>
> On 09/04/2014 11:29 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
>>> s/Fist/First/
>>>
>>>> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
>>>> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
>>>> + mpidr);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>> Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
>>> recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
> Well, the ACPI5.1 specification does require that the PEs (cores) be
> listed in a very specific order, with the boot CPU first, and then a
> precisely defined sequence of interleaving of any possible SMT threads
> with other cores. So I think you would in practice update your tables.
Thanks for the clarify.
>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
>>>> + * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
>>>> + * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
>>>> + * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
>>>> + * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>>> + */
> The Parking Protocol may be updated for a (limited) number of platforms
> that may use it in the early days. The preferred option (as described in
> the SBBR) is to use PSCI when at all possible. Some implementations of
> the architecture may not be able to use PSCI for MP-Boot. Thus while
> there may be some limited early use of the parking protocol (including
> while PSCI firmware is being finalized during bringup activities), it
> will ultimately be completely replaced by PSCI based boot over time.
Thank you for the clarify again :)
Will Parking Protocol be upstreamed? If yes, I think we can update the
comments when Parking Protocol driver upstreamed.
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 5:11 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 5:34 ` Jon Masters
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown,
Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On 09/09/2014 01:11 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014年09月09日 12:29, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Hi Hanjun, Lorenzo,
>
> Hi Jon,
>
>>
>> Resending due to my mail client removing list CCs...sorry about that.
>>
>> On 09/04/2014 11:29 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
>>>> s/Fist/First/
>>>>
>>>>> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
>>>>> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
>>>>> + mpidr);
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> + }
>>>> Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
>>>> recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
>> Well, the ACPI5.1 specification does require that the PEs (cores) be
>> listed in a very specific order, with the boot CPU first, and then a
>> precisely defined sequence of interleaving of any possible SMT threads
>> with other cores. So I think you would in practice update your tables.
>
> Thanks for the clarify.
No problem :) I'm trying to go through the various threads and ensure
various things are documented in the record. I'm skipping (for now)
notes on e.g. CPU cache flush behavior because we're not pushing for C3
support (or really any runtime power management) in the first round.
>>
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
>>>>> + * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
>>>>> + * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
>>>>> + * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
>>>>> + * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>>>> + */
>> The Parking Protocol may be updated for a (limited) number of platforms
>> that may use it in the early days. The preferred option (as described in
>> the SBBR) is to use PSCI when at all possible. Some implementations of
>> the architecture may not be able to use PSCI for MP-Boot. Thus while
>> there may be some limited early use of the parking protocol (including
>> while PSCI firmware is being finalized during bringup activities), it
>> will ultimately be completely replaced by PSCI based boot over time.
>
> Thank you for the clarify again :)
>
> Will Parking Protocol be upstreamed?
Yes, a version against v8 will be posted (perhaps in the next few days),
but we should not wait for it in this general discussion. The default in
v8 will be PSCI other than for early bringup, or for an architecture
implementation that cannot use PSCI, which is rare.
(When we wrote the SBBR we had many discussions about this. A goal is to
be fair to everyone - those rare instances where PSCI is not possible
must be covered by a specification, but there must be a strong
preference established for a preferred course over the longer term)
> If yes, I think we can update the
> comments when Parking Protocol driver upstreamed.
Indeed so. For the moment, the logic you have in your patch to fail
setup in the case that there is no defined PSCI cpu ops for the
associated processor is fine IMHO.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-04 15:29 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 4:29 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 16:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-09 17:00 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 17:02 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2014-09-09 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Tomasz Nowicki
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On 2014?09?04? 01:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:47PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
> >> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
> >> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
> >> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
> >>
> >> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
> >> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
> >> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
> >> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
> [...]
> >> int acpi_noirq; /* skip ACPI IRQ initialization */
> >> int acpi_disabled;
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
> >> @@ -31,6 +35,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
> >> int acpi_pci_disabled; /* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
> >>
> >> +static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
> > Will this be ever different from (num_possible_cpus() - 1) ?
>
> Yes, num_possible_cpus() will much more than enabled cpus
> in MADT, when ACPI based CPU hot plug is introduced, you can refer
> to the code in x86.
Ok, but in the context of this patch to me they represent the same value.
I understand you need a counter, which you should probably use to
enumerate the logical cpus instead of resorting to the first empty
slot in cpu_possible_mask.
Anyway, it is a minor point, please be consistent that's all I am asking.
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
> >> * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
> >> @@ -51,6 +57,144 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size)
> >> early_memunmap(map, size);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/**
> >> + * acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface - generates a logical cpu number
> >> + * and map to MPIDR represented by GICC structure
> >> + * @mpidr: CPU's hardware id to register, MPIDR represented in MADT
> >> + * @enabled: this cpu is enabled or not
> >> + *
> >> + * Returns the logical cpu number which maps to MPIDR
> >> + */
> >> +static int acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(u64 mpidr, u8 enabled)
> >> +{
> >> + int cpu;
> >> +
> >> + if (mpidr == INVALID_HWID) {
> >> + pr_info("Skip invalid cpu hardware ID\n");
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + total_cpus++;
> > What's this used for ?
>
> It is for all the CPU entries in MADT table, it is used to let
> people know how many CPUs in MADT (enabled and disabled).
I think its usage is very limited at the moment, again it is not a major
point, I was just asking, I certainly do not think it is essential at
this stage (apart from debugging the parsing code).
> >> + if (!enabled)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
> >> + pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
> >> + NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* No need to check duplicate MPIDRs for the first CPU */
> >> + if (enabled_cpus) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Duplicate MPIDRs are a recipe for disaster. Scan
> >> + * all initialized entries and check for
> >> + * duplicates. If any is found just ignore the CPU.
> >> + */
> >> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> >> + if (cpu_logical_map(cpu) == mpidr) {
> >> + pr_err("Firmware bug, duplicate CPU MPIDR: 0x%llx in MADT\n",
> >> + mpidr);
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> + } else {
> >> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
> > s/Fist/First/
> >
> >> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
> >> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
> >> + mpidr);
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> > Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
> > recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
>
> No, you needn't. there is a logic problem here, we just need to print
> some message here and continue, OS will still ok with that.
I need to look at the specs here. I do not like fixed dependencies on
the boot CPU, which risk being translated in dependencies on first/last
CPU going-to/getting-out-of idle and that is a major concern, among
others.
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /* allocate a logical cpu id for the new comer */
> >> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) == mpidr) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * boot_cpu_init() already hold bit 0 in cpu_present_mask
> >> + * for BSP, no need to allocate again.
> >> + */
> >> + cpu = 0;
> >> + } else {
> >> + cpu = cpumask_next_zero(-1, cpu_possible_mask);
> >> + }
> > You may use a ternary operator, more compact and clearer.
> >
> > BTW you seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand you keep a
> > counter for enabled_cpus, and then use cpu_possible_mask to allocate
> > a logical cpu id. Make a decision, either you use a counter or you
> > use cpu_possible_mask and its bitweight.
>
> ok.
>
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
> >> + * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
> >> + * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
> >> + * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
> >> + * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!acpi_psci_present()) {
> >> + pr_warn("CPU %d has no PSCI support, will not boot\n", cpu);
> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> + }
> > This check really does not belong here. You do not even start parsing the gic
> > cpu interfaces if psci is missing or I am missing something myself. Anyway,
> > this check must not be in this function.
>
> I agree with you, i will update the patch.
>
> >
> >> +
> >> + /* Get cpu_ops include the boot CPU */
> >> + cpu_ops[cpu] = cpu_get_ops("psci");
> >> + if (!cpu_ops[cpu])
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
> >> + if (cpu) {
> >> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
> >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> +
> >> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
> >> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
> >> +
> >> + set_cpu_possible(cpu, true);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + enabled_cpus++;
> > See above to me enabled_cpus and (num_possible_cpus() - 1) are identical.
>
> I think I need to remove all the CPU hotplug related code and make this function
> as simple as possible and introduce them when needed.
Yes that makes sense, even though a bit of foresight is always appreciated;
I certainly do not want you to completely rewrite this code to support CPU
hotplug to be 100% clear. "Disabled" CPUs is a concept that is not
managed at the moment with DT (on ARM and ARM64), and we need to introduce it
properly. Again, I was asking questions, to understand why you would need
those variables.
Have a look at this discussion:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/6/470
>
> >
> >> + return cpu;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int __init
> >> +acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
> >> + const unsigned long end)
> >> +{
> >> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
> >> +
> >> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
> >> +
> >> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header);
> >> +
> >> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
> >> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
> > Ehm. You must check the return value here right (and return an error if
> > that's an error, otherwise the count value below can be botched ?!).
> >
> > Or you do not consider a parsing error as an error and want to keep
> > parsing remaining GIC CPU IF entries ?
>
> yes, this is my intension. we can skip the error ones and boot
> other CPUs which have no errors.
>
> >
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/* Parse GIC cpu interface entries in MADT for SMP init */
> >> +void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
> >> +{
> >> + int count;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * do a partial walk of MADT to determine how many CPUs
> >> + * we have including disabled CPUs, and get information
> >> + * we need for SMP init
> >> + */
> >> + count = acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
> >> + acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface,
> >> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
> >> +
> >> + if (!count) {
> >> + pr_err("No GIC CPU interface entries present\n");
> >> + return;
> >> + } else if (count < 0) {
> >> + pr_err("Error parsing GIC CPU interface entry\n");
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> > What would you consider an error ? A single GIC CPU IF entry error ?
>
> could you please explain it in detail? I can't catch up with you, my apologizes.
You explained to me above. A bogus entry does not stop you from parsing
other CPUs, this is a design choice and that's what we do in ARM64 DT today,
so I would say that's fine.
Lorenzo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 16:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2014-09-09 17:00 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 17:02 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/09/2014 12:52 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>>> + if (!enabled)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
>>>> + pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
>>>> + NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /* No need to check duplicate MPIDRs for the first CPU */
>>>> + if (enabled_cpus) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Duplicate MPIDRs are a recipe for disaster. Scan
>>>> + * all initialized entries and check for
>>>> + * duplicates. If any is found just ignore the CPU.
>>>> + */
>>>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>>>> + if (cpu_logical_map(cpu) == mpidr) {
>>>> + pr_err("Firmware bug, duplicate CPU MPIDR: 0x%llx in MADT\n",
>>>> + mpidr);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
>>> s/Fist/First/
>>>
>>>> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
>>>> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
>>>> + mpidr);
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>> Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
>>> recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
>>
>> No, you needn't. there is a logic problem here, we just need to print
>> some message here and continue, OS will still ok with that.
>
> I need to look at the specs here. I do not like fixed dependencies on
> the boot CPU, which risk being translated in dependencies on first/last
> CPU going-to/getting-out-of idle and that is a major concern, among
> others.
See page 149 of the ACPI5.1 specification document (5.2.12.14 GICC
Structure):
"Note: GICC descriptor structures are listed immediately after the Flags
field in the MADT, one descriptor for each GICC, followed by one for
each GICC Distributor. The Local GICC corresponding to the boot
processor must be the first entry in the Interrupt Controller Structure
list."
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 16:52 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-09 17:00 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 17:02 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/09/2014 12:52 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:29:15PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Get cpu_ops include the boot CPU */
>>>> + cpu_ops[cpu] = cpu_get_ops("psci");
>>>> + if (!cpu_ops[cpu])
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>>>> + if (cpu) {
>>>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>>>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
>>>> +
>>>> + set_cpu_possible(cpu, true);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + enabled_cpus++;
>>> See above to me enabled_cpus and (num_possible_cpus() - 1) are identical.
>>
>> I think I need to remove all the CPU hotplug related code and make this function
>> as simple as possible and introduce them when needed.
>
> Yes that makes sense, even though a bit of foresight is always appreciated;
> I certainly do not want you to completely rewrite this code to support CPU
> hotplug to be 100% clear. "Disabled" CPUs is a concept that is not
> managed at the moment with DT (on ARM and ARM64), and we need to introduce it
> properly. Again, I was asking questions, to understand why you would need
> those variables.
>
> Have a look at this discussion:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/6/470
There could also be other reasons to disable "CPUs". For example, in an
SMT system configured not to use SMT threads, you might (in one
instantiation) decide to simply mark such GICCs as not enabled.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization Hanjun Guo
2014-09-03 17:21 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2014-09-09 4:23 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 4:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-11 10:24 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 4:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, Grant Likely
Cc: linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Graeme Gregory,
Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-acpi, linux-kernel
On 09/01/2014 10:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>
> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
> + if (cpu) {
> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
I'm not sure it's worth noting in a comment or just in the dialogue that
none of these MPIDR values is literally the value in the MPIDR. Linux
doesn't store that anyway (even in the cpu_logical_map), since it is
pre-filtered against MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK to remove the non-affinity level
bits. And since the ACPI5.1 specification requires that non-affinity
bits be zero everything works. But it relies upon this assumption so it
might be worth explicitly masking out the bits when making the call into:
acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
During the parsing of the processor object's MPIDR value.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 4:23 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 4:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 5:44 ` Jon Masters
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-09 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Masters
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Graeme Gregory,
Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
Hi Jon,
On 2014年09月09日 12:23, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/01/2014 10:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
>> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
>> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
>> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>>
>> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
>> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
>> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
>> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>> + if (cpu) {
>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
> I'm not sure it's worth noting in a comment or just in the dialogue that
> none of these MPIDR values is literally the value in the MPIDR. Linux
> doesn't store that anyway (even in the cpu_logical_map), since it is
> pre-filtered against MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK to remove the non-affinity level
> bits. And since the ACPI5.1 specification requires that non-affinity
> bits be zero everything works. But it relies upon this assumption so it
> might be worth explicitly masking out the bits when making the call into:
>
> acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
> processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>
> During the parsing of the processor object's MPIDR value.
Yes, I agree with you. When I tested this patch set on our
ARM64 platform, I found this problem too. some firmware
will just present the real MPIDR value to OS which some reserved
bit set to 1, and it will lead to some logic problem in this patch.
(actually firmware didn't obey with ACPI spec)
I had updated the patch with:
+ acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK,
+ processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
and then the problem was gone :)
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 4:57 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 5:44 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 16:00 ` Hanjun Guo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 5:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Graeme Gregory,
Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
On 09/09/2014 12:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> On 2014年09月09日 12:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 09/01/2014 10:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
>>> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
>>> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
>>> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>>>
>>> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
>>> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
>>> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
>>> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>>> + if (cpu) {
>>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> +
>>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
>> I'm not sure it's worth noting in a comment or just in the dialogue that
>> none of these MPIDR values is literally the value in the MPIDR. Linux
>> doesn't store that anyway (even in the cpu_logical_map), since it is
>> pre-filtered against MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK to remove the non-affinity level
>> bits. And since the ACPI5.1 specification requires that non-affinity
>> bits be zero everything works. But it relies upon this assumption so it
>> might be worth explicitly masking out the bits when making the call into:
>>
>> acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
>> processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>
>> During the parsing of the processor object's MPIDR value.
>
> Yes, I agree with you. When I tested this patch set on our
> ARM64 platform, I found this problem too. some firmware
> will just present the real MPIDR value to OS which some reserved
> bit set to 1, and it will lead to some logic problem in this patch.
> (actually firmware didn't obey with ACPI spec)
>
> I had updated the patch with:
>
> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK,
> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>
> and then the problem was gone :)
Did I miss an updated patch posting then? It is possible...I was keeping
out of this thread for "obvious" reasons (I'm somewhat biased in favor
of ACPI on 64-bit ARM server platforms and thus not objective in all
cases...so I am confining my feedback to technical specifics). But it's
necessary that there be a little more discussion here. I've got a couple
of requests into various vendors to get more vocal too.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 5:44 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 16:00 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 16:04 ` Jon Masters
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-09 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Masters
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Graeme Gregory,
Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
On 2014年09月09日 13:44, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 12:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> On 2014年09月09日 12:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 09/01/2014 10:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
>>>> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
>>>> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
>>>> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>>>>
>>>> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
>>>> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
>>>> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
>>>> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>>>> + if (cpu) {
>>>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>>>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
>>> I'm not sure it's worth noting in a comment or just in the dialogue that
>>> none of these MPIDR values is literally the value in the MPIDR. Linux
>>> doesn't store that anyway (even in the cpu_logical_map), since it is
>>> pre-filtered against MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK to remove the non-affinity level
>>> bits. And since the ACPI5.1 specification requires that non-affinity
>>> bits be zero everything works. But it relies upon this assumption so it
>>> might be worth explicitly masking out the bits when making the call into:
>>>
>>> acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
>>> processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>>
>>> During the parsing of the processor object's MPIDR value.
>> Yes, I agree with you. When I tested this patch set on our
>> ARM64 platform, I found this problem too. some firmware
>> will just present the real MPIDR value to OS which some reserved
>> bit set to 1, and it will lead to some logic problem in this patch.
>> (actually firmware didn't obey with ACPI spec)
>>
>> I had updated the patch with:
>>
>> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK,
>> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>
>> and then the problem was gone :)
> Did I miss an updated patch posting then? It is possible...
No, you didn't miss it, I'm still working on the new version, sorry I didn't
clarify that in my previous email.
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 16:00 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 16:04 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 16:14 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-11 14:15 ` Will Deacon
0 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Graeme Gregory,
Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
On 09/09/2014 12:00 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014年09月09日 13:44, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 09/09/2014 12:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> On 2014年09月09日 12:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2014 10:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
>>>>> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
>>>>> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
>>>>> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>>>>>
>>>>> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
>>>>> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
>>>>> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
>>>>> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>>>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>>>>> + if (cpu) {
>>>>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>>>>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
>>>> I'm not sure it's worth noting in a comment or just in the dialogue that
>>>> none of these MPIDR values is literally the value in the MPIDR. Linux
>>>> doesn't store that anyway (even in the cpu_logical_map), since it is
>>>> pre-filtered against MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK to remove the non-affinity level
>>>> bits. And since the ACPI5.1 specification requires that non-affinity
>>>> bits be zero everything works. But it relies upon this assumption so it
>>>> might be worth explicitly masking out the bits when making the call into:
>>>>
>>>> acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
>>>> processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>>>
>>>> During the parsing of the processor object's MPIDR value.
>>> Yes, I agree with you. When I tested this patch set on our
>>> ARM64 platform, I found this problem too. some firmware
>>> will just present the real MPIDR value to OS which some reserved
>>> bit set to 1, and it will lead to some logic problem in this patch.
>>> (actually firmware didn't obey with ACPI spec)
>>>
>>> I had updated the patch with:
>>>
>>> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK,
>>> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>>
>>> and then the problem was gone :)
>> Did I miss an updated patch posting then? It is possible...
>
> No, you didn't miss it, I'm still working on the new version, sorry I didn't
> clarify that in my previous email.
Thanks. If you could copy me on the next posting that would rock. In a
few hours we should have another platform posted as an example. In
addition, a couple of lower priority patches (building upon the core
ACPI pieces) should be posted as well.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 16:04 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-09 16:14 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-11 14:15 ` Will Deacon
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-09 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Masters
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Graeme Gregory,
Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
On 2014年09月10日 00:04, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 12:00 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2014年09月09日 13:44, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2014 12:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> Hi Jon,
>>>>
>>>> On 2014年09月09日 12:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>>> On 09/01/2014 10:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
>>>>>> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
>>>>>> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
>>>>>> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
>>>>>> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
>>>>>> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
>>>>>> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>>>>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>>>>>> + if (cpu) {
>>>>>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>>>>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>>>>>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
>>>>> I'm not sure it's worth noting in a comment or just in the dialogue that
>>>>> none of these MPIDR values is literally the value in the MPIDR. Linux
>>>>> doesn't store that anyway (even in the cpu_logical_map), since it is
>>>>> pre-filtered against MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK to remove the non-affinity level
>>>>> bits. And since the ACPI5.1 specification requires that non-affinity
>>>>> bits be zero everything works. But it relies upon this assumption so it
>>>>> might be worth explicitly masking out the bits when making the call into:
>>>>>
>>>>> acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
>>>>> processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>>>>
>>>>> During the parsing of the processor object's MPIDR value.
>>>> Yes, I agree with you. When I tested this patch set on our
>>>> ARM64 platform, I found this problem too. some firmware
>>>> will just present the real MPIDR value to OS which some reserved
>>>> bit set to 1, and it will lead to some logic problem in this patch.
>>>> (actually firmware didn't obey with ACPI spec)
>>>>
>>>> I had updated the patch with:
>>>>
>>>> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK,
>>>> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>>>
>>>> and then the problem was gone :)
>>> Did I miss an updated patch posting then? It is possible...
>> No, you didn't miss it, I'm still working on the new version, sorry I didn't
>> clarify that in my previous email.
> Thanks. If you could copy me on the next posting that would rock.
Sure I will.
> In a
> few hours we should have another platform posted as an example. In
> addition, a couple of lower priority patches (building upon the core
> ACPI pieces) should be posted as well.
That will be great! :)
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-09 16:04 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-09 16:14 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-11 14:15 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-12 21:30 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2014-09-11 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Masters
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore,
linux-acpi, Charles Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Tomasz Nowicki, Mark Brown,
Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, graeme.gregory, Randy Dunlap,
linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:04:15PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 12:00 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > No, you didn't miss it, I'm still working on the new version, sorry I didn't
> > clarify that in my previous email.
>
> Thanks. If you could copy me on the next posting that would rock. In a
> few hours we should have another platform posted as an example. In
> addition, a couple of lower priority patches (building upon the core
> ACPI pieces) should be posted as well.
Can I breath out yet or did I miss the platform posting?
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-11 14:15 ` Will Deacon
@ 2014-09-12 21:30 ` Jon Masters
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-12 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore,
linux-acpi, Charles Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Tomasz Nowicki, Mark Brown,
Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, graeme.gregory, Randy Dunlap,
linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
On 09/11/2014 10:15 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:04:15PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 09/09/2014 12:00 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> No, you didn't miss it, I'm still working on the new version, sorry I didn't
>>> clarify that in my previous email.
>>
>> Thanks. If you could copy me on the next posting that would rock. In a
>> few hours we should have another platform posted as an example. In
>> addition, a couple of lower priority patches (building upon the core
>> ACPI pieces) should be posted as well.
>
> Can I breath out yet or did I miss the platform posting?
There's a posting for AMD Seattle coming soon as an example. Also, there
should be some hardware at Connect on which patches can run.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization Hanjun Guo
2014-09-03 17:21 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-09 4:23 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-11 10:24 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-11 10:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo, Tomasz Nowicki
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:47 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>
> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> ---
> +/**
> + * acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface - generates a logical cpu number
> + * and map to MPIDR represented by GICC structure
> + * @mpidr: CPU's hardware id to register, MPIDR represented in MADT
> + * @enabled: this cpu is enabled or not
> + *
> + * Returns the logical cpu number which maps to MPIDR
> + */
> +static int acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(u64 mpidr, u8 enabled)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (mpidr == INVALID_HWID) {
> + pr_info("Skip invalid cpu hardware ID\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + total_cpus++;
> + if (!enabled)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
> + pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
> + NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + /* No need to check duplicate MPIDRs for the first CPU */
> + if (enabled_cpus) {
> + /*
> + * Duplicate MPIDRs are a recipe for disaster. Scan
> + * all initialized entries and check for
> + * duplicates. If any is found just ignore the CPU.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu_logical_map(cpu) == mpidr) {
> + pr_err("Firmware bug, duplicate CPU MPIDR: 0x%llx in MADT\n",
> + mpidr);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> + } else {
> + /* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
> + pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
> + mpidr);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* allocate a logical cpu id for the new comer */
> + if (cpu_logical_map(0) == mpidr) {
> + /*
> + * boot_cpu_init() already hold bit 0 in cpu_present_mask
> + * for BSP, no need to allocate again.
> + */
> + cpu = 0;
> + } else {
> + cpu = cpumask_next_zero(-1, cpu_possible_mask);
> + }
Nit: so the above two if/else blocks are essentially testing for the
same condition: Is this the first cpu? or a secondary cpu? I would
merge the two into a single if/else block.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 10/17] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-03 16:27 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 11/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi Hanjun Guo
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
Introduce a new function map_gicc_mpidr() to allow MPIDRs to be obtained
from the GICC Structure introduced by ACPI 5.1.
MPIDR is the CPU hardware ID as local APIC ID on x86 platform, so we use
MPIDR not the GIC CPU interface ID to identify CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 1 -
drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index e013dbb..a867467 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
#ifndef _ASM_ACPI_H
#define _ASM_ACPI_H
+#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
+
/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
#define acpi_strict 1 /* No out-of-spec workarounds on ARM64 */
@@ -38,6 +40,36 @@ static inline void disable_acpi(void)
acpi_noirq = 1;
}
+/* MPIDR value provided in GICC structure is 64 bits, but
+ * the acpi processor driver use the 32 bits cpu hardware
+ * ID (apic_id on intel platform) everywhere, it is pretty
+ * hard to modify the acpi processor driver to accept the
+ * 64 bits MPIDR value, at the same time, only 32 bits of
+ * the MPIDR is used in the 64 bits MPIDR, just pack the
+ * Affx fields into a single 32 bit identifier to accommodate
+ * the acpi processor drivers.
+ */
+static inline u32 pack_mpidr_into_32_bits(u64 mpidr)
+{
+ /*
+ * Bits [0:7] Aff0;
+ * Bits [8:15] Aff1;
+ * Bits [16:23] Aff2;
+ * Bits [32:39] Aff3;
+ */
+ return (u32) ((mpidr & 0xff00000000) >> 8) | mpidr;
+}
+
+/*
+ * The ACPI processor driver for ACPI core code needs this macro
+ * to find out this cpu was already mapped (mapping from CPU hardware
+ * ID to CPU logical ID) or not.
+ *
+ * cpu_logical_map(cpu) is the mapping of MPIDR and the logical cpu,
+ * and MPIDR is the cpu hardware ID we needed to pack.
+ */
+#define cpu_physical_id(cpu) pack_mpidr_into_32_bits(cpu_logical_map(cpu))
+
/*
* It's used from ACPI core in kdump to boot UP system with SMP kernel,
* with this check the ACPI core will not override the CPU index
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index fbaaf01..35dff11 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
-#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
#include <asm/cputype.h>
#include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
index e32321c..4007313 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
@@ -64,6 +64,38 @@ static int map_lsapic_id(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry,
return 0;
}
+/*
+ * On ARM platform, MPIDR value is the hardware ID as apic ID
+ * on Intel platforms
+ */
+static int map_gicc_mpidr(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry,
+ int device_declaration, u32 acpi_id, int *mpidr)
+{
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc =
+ container_of(entry, struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, header);
+
+ if (!(gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED))
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ /* In the GIC interrupt model, logical processors are
+ * required to have a Processor Device object in the DSDT,
+ * so we should check device_declaration here
+ */
+ if (device_declaration && (gicc->uid == acpi_id)) {
+ /*
+ * Only bits [0:7] Aff0, bits [8:15] Aff1, bits [16:23] Aff2
+ * and bits [32:39] Aff3 are meaningful, so pack the Affx
+ * fields into a single 32 bit identifier to accommodate the
+ * acpi processor drivers.
+ */
+ *mpidr = ((gicc->arm_mpidr & 0xff00000000) >> 8)
+ | gicc->arm_mpidr;
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ return -EINVAL;
+}
+
static int map_madt_entry(int type, u32 acpi_id)
{
unsigned long madt_end, entry;
@@ -99,6 +131,9 @@ static int map_madt_entry(int type, u32 acpi_id)
} else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_SAPIC) {
if (!map_lsapic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id))
break;
+ } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT) {
+ if (!map_gicc_mpidr(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id))
+ break;
}
entry += header->length;
}
@@ -131,6 +166,8 @@ static int map_mat_entry(acpi_handle handle, int type, u32 acpi_id)
map_lsapic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
} else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_X2APIC) {
map_x2apic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
+ } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT) {
+ map_gicc_mpidr(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
}
exit:
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 10/17] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 10/17] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-03 16:27 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-08 13:10 ` Hanjun Guo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2014-09-03 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
Hi Hanjun,
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:48PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Introduce a new function map_gicc_mpidr() to allow MPIDRs to be obtained
> from the GICC Structure introduced by ACPI 5.1.
>
> MPIDR is the CPU hardware ID as local APIC ID on x86 platform, so we use
> MPIDR not the GIC CPU interface ID to identify CPUs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 1 -
> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> index e013dbb..a867467 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> #ifndef _ASM_ACPI_H
> #define _ASM_ACPI_H
>
> +#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
> +
> /* Basic configuration for ACPI */
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> #define acpi_strict 1 /* No out-of-spec workarounds on ARM64 */
> @@ -38,6 +40,36 @@ static inline void disable_acpi(void)
> acpi_noirq = 1;
> }
>
> +/* MPIDR value provided in GICC structure is 64 bits, but
> + * the acpi processor driver use the 32 bits cpu hardware
> + * ID (apic_id on intel platform) everywhere, it is pretty
> + * hard to modify the acpi processor driver to accept the
> + * 64 bits MPIDR value, at the same time, only 32 bits of
> + * the MPIDR is used in the 64 bits MPIDR, just pack the
> + * Affx fields into a single 32 bit identifier to accommodate
> + * the acpi processor drivers.
> + */
I have comments on the code in this patch, but they are not the most
important point. What I am really worried about, it is that as ARM,
I do not want to know what an apic_id is. This code is *supposed* to be
generic and yet it is chock-full of x86 specific stuff and you are
trying to make ARM HW concepts fit with x86 ones, and I am not happy
with that.
To be clearer, why does not this look-up of:
logical-cpu-index -> physical-cpu-index
is not carried out using the acpi_id ? Every architecture will have to
add arch specific code to carry out the reverse look-up:
acpi_id -> apic_id (x86)
acpi_id -> mpidr_el1 (arm64)
and the code would end up being split in a nice way. On top of that, I wonder
why ACPI structures like eg struct acpi_processor contain x86 specific
data (ie apic_id). I know it is a HW identifier as the MPIDR_EL1 is on
arm64, but I do not want to deal with that in generic ACPI code because
that's not generic at ALL.
What if another architecture wants to use ACPI ? Are we going to map its
HW CPU identifier to an apic_id only because that's what x86 requires ?
I am sorry I do not like that. I understand it is easier to map ARM code
to existing ACPI structures but I feel we will run into issues very soon
because of that.
Is it that complex to remove the apic_id dependency in *generic* ACPI
code and replace it with functions that hook into arch specific code to
carry out the logical to physical cpu mappings ?
I understand this is harder to do, but it will make your life easier
in the long run. I am thinking of other pieces of code like the
supposedly generic ACPI CPUidle driver, where we *still* depend on the apic
to detect idle states, this is not going to fly, I am sorry, we need to
have code that has a chance to be generic from the beginning not as an
afterthought.
Lorenzo
> +static inline u32 pack_mpidr_into_32_bits(u64 mpidr)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Bits [0:7] Aff0;
> + * Bits [8:15] Aff1;
> + * Bits [16:23] Aff2;
> + * Bits [32:39] Aff3;
> + */
> + return (u32) ((mpidr & 0xff00000000) >> 8) | mpidr;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * The ACPI processor driver for ACPI core code needs this macro
> + * to find out this cpu was already mapped (mapping from CPU hardware
> + * ID to CPU logical ID) or not.
> + *
> + * cpu_logical_map(cpu) is the mapping of MPIDR and the logical cpu,
> + * and MPIDR is the cpu hardware ID we needed to pack.
> + */
> +#define cpu_physical_id(cpu) pack_mpidr_into_32_bits(cpu_logical_map(cpu))
> +
> /*
> * It's used from ACPI core in kdump to boot UP system with SMP kernel,
> * with this check the ACPI core will not override the CPU index
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index fbaaf01..35dff11 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
>
> -#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
> index e32321c..4007313 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
> @@ -64,6 +64,38 @@ static int map_lsapic_id(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * On ARM platform, MPIDR value is the hardware ID as apic ID
> + * on Intel platforms
> + */
> +static int map_gicc_mpidr(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry,
> + int device_declaration, u32 acpi_id, int *mpidr)
> +{
> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc =
> + container_of(entry, struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, header);
> +
> + if (!(gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + /* In the GIC interrupt model, logical processors are
> + * required to have a Processor Device object in the DSDT,
> + * so we should check device_declaration here
> + */
> + if (device_declaration && (gicc->uid == acpi_id)) {
> + /*
> + * Only bits [0:7] Aff0, bits [8:15] Aff1, bits [16:23] Aff2
> + * and bits [32:39] Aff3 are meaningful, so pack the Affx
> + * fields into a single 32 bit identifier to accommodate the
> + * acpi processor drivers.
> + */
> + *mpidr = ((gicc->arm_mpidr & 0xff00000000) >> 8)
> + | gicc->arm_mpidr;
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> static int map_madt_entry(int type, u32 acpi_id)
> {
> unsigned long madt_end, entry;
> @@ -99,6 +131,9 @@ static int map_madt_entry(int type, u32 acpi_id)
> } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_SAPIC) {
> if (!map_lsapic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id))
> break;
> + } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT) {
> + if (!map_gicc_mpidr(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id))
> + break;
> }
> entry += header->length;
> }
> @@ -131,6 +166,8 @@ static int map_mat_entry(acpi_handle handle, int type, u32 acpi_id)
> map_lsapic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
> } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_X2APIC) {
> map_x2apic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
> + } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT) {
> + map_gicc_mpidr(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
> }
>
> exit:
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 10/17] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC
2014-09-03 16:27 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
@ 2014-09-08 13:10 ` Hanjun Guo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-08 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi, Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 2014年09月04日 00:27, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> Hi Hanjun,
Hi Lorenzo,
Sorry for the late reply, some comments below.
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:48PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Introduce a new function map_gicc_mpidr() to allow MPIDRs to be obtained
>> from the GICC Structure introduced by ACPI 5.1.
>>
>> MPIDR is the CPU hardware ID as local APIC ID on x86 platform, so we use
>> MPIDR not the GIC CPU interface ID to identify CPUs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 1 -
>> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> index e013dbb..a867467 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
>> #ifndef _ASM_ACPI_H
>> #define _ASM_ACPI_H
>>
>> +#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
>> +
>> /* Basic configuration for ACPI */
>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> #define acpi_strict 1 /* No out-of-spec workarounds on ARM64 */
>> @@ -38,6 +40,36 @@ static inline void disable_acpi(void)
>> acpi_noirq = 1;
>> }
>>
>> +/* MPIDR value provided in GICC structure is 64 bits, but
>> + * the acpi processor driver use the 32 bits cpu hardware
>> + * ID (apic_id on intel platform) everywhere, it is pretty
>> + * hard to modify the acpi processor driver to accept the
>> + * 64 bits MPIDR value, at the same time, only 32 bits of
>> + * the MPIDR is used in the 64 bits MPIDR, just pack the
>> + * Affx fields into a single 32 bit identifier to accommodate
>> + * the acpi processor drivers.
>> + */
> I have comments on the code in this patch, but they are not the most
> important point. What I am really worried about, it is that as ARM,
> I do not want to know what an apic_id is. This code is *supposed* to be
> generic and yet it is chock-full of x86 specific stuff and you are
> trying to make ARM HW concepts fit with x86 ones, and I am not happy
> with that.
apic_id actually represents unique cpu hardware id in MADT to identify
a CPU for x86 and ia64, it was introduced before ACPI supports ARM
platform, when ARM was introduced to ACPI, it needs some updates as
you said.
>
> To be clearer, why does not this look-up of:
>
> logical-cpu-index -> physical-cpu-index
>
> is not carried out using the acpi_id ? Every architecture will have to
> add arch specific code to carry out the reverse look-up:
>
> acpi_id -> apic_id (x86)
> acpi_id -> mpidr_el1 (arm64)
>
> and the code would end up being split in a nice way. On top of that, I wonder
> why ACPI structures like eg struct acpi_processor contain x86 specific
> data (ie apic_id). I know it is a HW identifier as the MPIDR_EL1 is on
> arm64, but I do not want to deal with that in generic ACPI code because
> that's not generic at ALL.
As I said above, apic_id is cpu hardware id in MADT, its name is
x86 specific now, but meaning behind the name is not x86 specific,
we can rename it as physid or cpu_hw_id, and then will be generic.
Rafael, is it ok to you to rename apic_id to physid or cpu_hw_id in
ACPI core for the reason above?
>
> What if another architecture wants to use ACPI ? Are we going to map its
> HW CPU identifier to an apic_id only because that's what x86 requires ?
>
> I am sorry I do not like that. I understand it is easier to map ARM code
> to existing ACPI structures but I feel we will run into issues very soon
> because of that.
>
> Is it that complex to remove the apic_id dependency in *generic* ACPI
> code and replace it with functions that hook into arch specific code to
> carry out the logical to physical cpu mappings ?
Yes, I think there is no easy way to fix that, the main reason is
that MPIDR for ARM64 is 64bit, and apic_id for x86 and ia64 is no
more than 32bit.
thanks
Hanjun
>
> I understand this is harder to do, but it will make your life easier
> in the long run. I am thinking of other pieces of code like the
> supposedly generic ACPI CPUidle driver, where we *still* depend on the apic
> to detect idle states, this is not going to fly, I am sorry, we need to
> have code that has a chance to be generic from the beginning not as an
> afterthought.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>> +static inline u32 pack_mpidr_into_32_bits(u64 mpidr)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * Bits [0:7] Aff0;
>> + * Bits [8:15] Aff1;
>> + * Bits [16:23] Aff2;
>> + * Bits [32:39] Aff3;
>> + */
>> + return (u32) ((mpidr & 0xff00000000) >> 8) | mpidr;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * The ACPI processor driver for ACPI core code needs this macro
>> + * to find out this cpu was already mapped (mapping from CPU hardware
>> + * ID to CPU logical ID) or not.
>> + *
>> + * cpu_logical_map(cpu) is the mapping of MPIDR and the logical cpu,
>> + * and MPIDR is the cpu hardware ID we needed to pack.
>> + */
>> +#define cpu_physical_id(cpu) pack_mpidr_into_32_bits(cpu_logical_map(cpu))
>> +
>> /*
>> * It's used from ACPI core in kdump to boot UP system with SMP kernel,
>> * with this check the ACPI core will not override the CPU index
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> index fbaaf01..35dff11 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@
>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>
>> -#include <asm/smp_plat.h>
>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>> index e32321c..4007313 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>> @@ -64,6 +64,38 @@ static int map_lsapic_id(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * On ARM platform, MPIDR value is the hardware ID as apic ID
>> + * on Intel platforms
>> + */
>> +static int map_gicc_mpidr(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry,
>> + int device_declaration, u32 acpi_id, int *mpidr)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc =
>> + container_of(entry, struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, header);
>> +
>> + if (!(gicc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + /* In the GIC interrupt model, logical processors are
>> + * required to have a Processor Device object in the DSDT,
>> + * so we should check device_declaration here
>> + */
>> + if (device_declaration && (gicc->uid == acpi_id)) {
>> + /*
>> + * Only bits [0:7] Aff0, bits [8:15] Aff1, bits [16:23] Aff2
>> + * and bits [32:39] Aff3 are meaningful, so pack the Affx
>> + * fields into a single 32 bit identifier to accommodate the
>> + * acpi processor drivers.
>> + */
>> + *mpidr = ((gicc->arm_mpidr & 0xff00000000) >> 8)
>> + | gicc->arm_mpidr;
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int map_madt_entry(int type, u32 acpi_id)
>> {
>> unsigned long madt_end, entry;
>> @@ -99,6 +131,9 @@ static int map_madt_entry(int type, u32 acpi_id)
>> } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_SAPIC) {
>> if (!map_lsapic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id))
>> break;
>> + } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT) {
>> + if (!map_gicc_mpidr(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id))
>> + break;
>> }
>> entry += header->length;
>> }
>> @@ -131,6 +166,8 @@ static int map_mat_entry(acpi_handle handle, int type, u32 acpi_id)
>> map_lsapic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
>> } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_X2APIC) {
>> map_x2apic_id(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
>> + } else if (header->type == ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT) {
>> + map_gicc_mpidr(header, type, acpi_id, &apic_id);
>> }
>>
>> exit:
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 11/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 10/17] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-11 11:08 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 12/17] ACPI / table: Add new function to get table entries Hanjun Guo
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC which is needed for ARM64 as GIC is
used, and then register device's gsi with the core IRQ subsystem.
acpi_register_gsi() is similar to DT based irq_of_parse_and_map(),
since gsi is unique in the system, so use hwirq number directly
for the mapping.
Originally-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/acpi/bus.c | 3 ++
include/linux/acpi.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index 35dff11..354b912 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -37,6 +37,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
/*
+ * Since we're on ARM, the default interrupt routing model
+ * clearly has to be GIC.
+ */
+enum acpi_irq_model_id acpi_irq_model = ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC;
+
+/*
* __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
* or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
*/
@@ -194,6 +200,73 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
pr_info("%d CPUs enabled, %d CPUs total\n", enabled_cpus, total_cpus);
}
+int acpi_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int *irq)
+{
+ *irq = irq_find_mapping(NULL, gsi);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_gsi_to_irq);
+
+/*
+ * success: return IRQ number (>0)
+ * failure: return =< 0
+ */
+int acpi_register_gsi(struct device *dev, u32 gsi, int trigger, int polarity)
+{
+ unsigned int irq;
+ unsigned int irq_type;
+
+ /*
+ * ACPI have no bindings to indicate SPI or PPI, so we
+ * use different mappings from DT in ACPI.
+ *
+ * For FDT
+ * PPI interrupt: in the range [0, 15];
+ * SPI interrupt: in the range [0, 987];
+ *
+ * For ACPI, GSI should be unique so using
+ * the hwirq directly for the mapping:
+ * PPI interrupt: in the range [16, 31];
+ * SPI interrupt: in the range [32, 1019];
+ */
+
+ if (trigger == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE &&
+ polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW)
+ irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING;
+ else if (trigger == ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE &&
+ polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH)
+ irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING;
+ else if (trigger == ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE &&
+ polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW)
+ irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW;
+ else if (trigger == ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE &&
+ polarity == ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH)
+ irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH;
+ else
+ irq_type = IRQ_TYPE_NONE;
+
+ /*
+ * Since only one GIC is supported in ACPI 5.0, we can
+ * create mapping refer to the default domain
+ */
+ irq = irq_create_mapping(NULL, gsi);
+ if (!irq)
+ return irq;
+
+ /* Set irq type if specified and different than the current one */
+ if (irq_type != IRQ_TYPE_NONE &&
+ irq_type != irq_get_trigger_type(irq))
+ irq_set_irq_type(irq, irq_type);
+ return irq;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_register_gsi);
+
+void acpi_unregister_gsi(u32 gsi)
+{
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_unregister_gsi);
+
static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table)
{
struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt *)table;
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/bus.c b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
index 8581f5b..d132c1b 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/bus.c
@@ -458,6 +458,9 @@ static int __init acpi_bus_init_irq(void)
case ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOSAPIC:
message = "IOSAPIC";
break;
+ case ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC:
+ message = "GIC";
+ break;
case ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_PLATFORM:
message = "platform specific model";
break;
diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
index 807cbc4..ed1c2d1 100644
--- a/include/linux/acpi.h
+++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ enum acpi_irq_model_id {
ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOAPIC,
ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOSAPIC,
ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_PLATFORM,
+ ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC,
ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_COUNT
};
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 11/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 11/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-11 11:08 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 11:34 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-12 9:42 ` Hanjun Guo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-11 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:49 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC which is needed for ARM64 as GIC is
> used, and then register device's gsi with the core IRQ subsystem.
>
> acpi_register_gsi() is similar to DT based irq_of_parse_and_map(),
> since gsi is unique in the system, so use hwirq number directly
> for the mapping.
>
> Originally-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 3 ++
> include/linux/acpi.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 35dff11..354b912 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -37,6 +37,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
> static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
>
> /*
> + * Since we're on ARM, the default interrupt routing model
> + * clearly has to be GIC.
> + */
> +enum acpi_irq_model_id acpi_irq_model = ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC;
> +
> +/*
> * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
> * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
> */
> @@ -194,6 +200,73 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
> pr_info("%d CPUs enabled, %d CPUs total\n", enabled_cpus, total_cpus);
> }
>
> +int acpi_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int *irq)
> +{
> + *irq = irq_find_mapping(NULL, gsi);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_gsi_to_irq);
Why is this exported? x86 exports it, but ia64 does not. There aren't
very many callers, and none of them can be built as a module AFAICS.
> +
> +/*
> + * success: return IRQ number (>0)
> + * failure: return =< 0
> + */
> +int acpi_register_gsi(struct device *dev, u32 gsi, int trigger, int polarity)
> +{
> + unsigned int irq;
> + unsigned int irq_type;
> +
> + /*
> + * ACPI have no bindings to indicate SPI or PPI, so we
> + * use different mappings from DT in ACPI.
> + *
> + * For FDT
> + * PPI interrupt: in the range [0, 15];
> + * SPI interrupt: in the range [0, 987];
> + *
> + * For ACPI, GSI should be unique so using
> + * the hwirq directly for the mapping:
> + * PPI interrupt: in the range [16, 31];
> + * SPI interrupt: in the range [32, 1019];
> + */
Hmmm, so doing it this way means that DT systems will have a different
irq_domain setup compared with ACPI systems. I'm not convinced we want
to do that, but I need to look at the code that sets up the new domains
before I comment further...
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 11/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi
2014-09-11 11:08 ` Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-11 11:34 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-12 9:42 ` Hanjun Guo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-11 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, ACPI Devel Mailing List, linux-arm-kernel,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, linaro-acpi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:49 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC which is needed for ARM64 as GIC is
>> used, and then register device's gsi with the core IRQ subsystem.
>>
>> acpi_register_gsi() is similar to DT based irq_of_parse_and_map(),
>> since gsi is unique in the system, so use hwirq number directly
>> for the mapping.
>>
>> Originally-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 3 ++
>> include/linux/acpi.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> index 35dff11..354b912 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> @@ -37,6 +37,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
>> static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
>>
>> /*
>> + * Since we're on ARM, the default interrupt routing model
>> + * clearly has to be GIC.
>> + */
>> +enum acpi_irq_model_id acpi_irq_model = ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC;
>> +
>> +/*
>> * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
>> * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
>> */
>> @@ -194,6 +200,73 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
>> pr_info("%d CPUs enabled, %d CPUs total\n", enabled_cpus, total_cpus);
>> }
>>
>> +int acpi_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int *irq)
>> +{
>> + *irq = irq_find_mapping(NULL, gsi);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_gsi_to_irq);
>
> Why is this exported? x86 exports it, but ia64 does not. There aren't
> very many callers, and none of them can be built as a module AFAICS.
>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * success: return IRQ number (>0)
>> + * failure: return =< 0
>> + */
>> +int acpi_register_gsi(struct device *dev, u32 gsi, int trigger, int polarity)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int irq;
>> + unsigned int irq_type;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * ACPI have no bindings to indicate SPI or PPI, so we
>> + * use different mappings from DT in ACPI.
>> + *
>> + * For FDT
>> + * PPI interrupt: in the range [0, 15];
>> + * SPI interrupt: in the range [0, 987];
>> + *
>> + * For ACPI, GSI should be unique so using
>> + * the hwirq directly for the mapping:
>> + * PPI interrupt: in the range [16, 31];
>> + * SPI interrupt: in the range [32, 1019];
>> + */
>
> Hmmm, so doing it this way means that DT systems will have a different
> irq_domain setup compared with ACPI systems. I'm not convinced we want
> to do that, but I need to look at the code that sets up the new domains
> before I comment further...
Okay, nevermind. I looked at the setup code. This isn't an issue of
the irq domain being set up differently, but rather the binding
translation operates differently between DT and ACPI. ACPI used a
single integer encapsulating PPI and SPI which just happens to line up
with the hwirq numbers, whereas DT uses a [type,number] tuple that
needs translating into the hwirq. This code is fine.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 11/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi
2014-09-11 11:08 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 11:34 ` Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-12 9:42 ` Hanjun Guo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-12 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On 2014年09月11日 19:08, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:49 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC which is needed for ARM64 as GIC is
>> used, and then register device's gsi with the core IRQ subsystem.
>>
>> acpi_register_gsi() is similar to DT based irq_of_parse_and_map(),
>> since gsi is unique in the system, so use hwirq number directly
>> for the mapping.
>>
>> Originally-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 3 ++
>> include/linux/acpi.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> index 35dff11..354b912 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> @@ -37,6 +37,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
>> static int enabled_cpus; /* Processors (GICC) with enabled flag in MADT */
>>
>> /*
>> + * Since we're on ARM, the default interrupt routing model
>> + * clearly has to be GIC.
>> + */
>> +enum acpi_irq_model_id acpi_irq_model = ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC;
>> +
>> +/*
>> * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
>> * or early_memremap() should be called here to for ACPI table mapping.
>> */
>> @@ -194,6 +200,73 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
>> pr_info("%d CPUs enabled, %d CPUs total\n", enabled_cpus, total_cpus);
>> }
>>
>> +int acpi_gsi_to_irq(u32 gsi, unsigned int *irq)
>> +{
>> + *irq = irq_find_mapping(NULL, gsi);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(acpi_gsi_to_irq);
> Why is this exported? x86 exports it, but ia64 does not. There aren't
> very many callers, and none of them can be built as a module AFAICS.
It will be called by Generic Hardware Error Source driver which
can be built as module, and it provides a way to report platform
hardware errors (such as that from chipset) which can also used
by ARM platform, so I think we can keep it as exported.
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 12/17] ACPI / table: Add new function to get table entries
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 11/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support Hanjun Guo
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Ashwin Chaugule, Hanjun Guo
From: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org>
The acpi_table_parse() function has a callback that
passes a pointer to a table_header. Add a new function
which takes this pointer and parses its entries. This
eliminates the need to re-traverse all the tables for
each call. e.g. as in acpi_table_parse_madt() which is
normally called after acpi_table_parse().
Signed-off-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
drivers/acpi/tables.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
include/linux/acpi.h | 4 +++
2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
index a97d2aa..4ab7566 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
@@ -235,17 +235,14 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header)
int __init
-acpi_table_parse_entries(char *id,
- unsigned long table_size,
- int entry_id,
- acpi_tbl_entry_handler handler,
- unsigned int max_entries)
+acpi_parse_entries(unsigned long table_size,
+ acpi_tbl_entry_handler handler,
+ struct acpi_table_header *table_header,
+ int entry_id, unsigned int max_entries)
{
- struct acpi_table_header *table_header = NULL;
struct acpi_subtable_header *entry;
- unsigned int count = 0;
+ int count = 0;
unsigned long table_end;
- acpi_size tbl_size;
if (acpi_disabled)
return -ENODEV;
@@ -253,13 +250,11 @@ acpi_table_parse_entries(char *id,
if (!handler)
return -EINVAL;
- if (strncmp(id, ACPI_SIG_MADT, 4) == 0)
- acpi_get_table_with_size(id, acpi_apic_instance, &table_header, &tbl_size);
- else
- acpi_get_table_with_size(id, 0, &table_header, &tbl_size);
+ if (!table_size)
+ return -EINVAL;
if (!table_header) {
- pr_warn("%4.4s not present\n", id);
+ pr_warn("Table header not present\n");
return -ENODEV;
}
@@ -274,31 +269,66 @@ acpi_table_parse_entries(char *id,
table_end) {
if (entry->type == entry_id
&& (!max_entries || count++ < max_entries))
- if (handler(entry, table_end))
+ if (handler(entry, table_end)) {
+ count = -EINVAL;
goto err;
+ }
/*
* If entry->length is 0, break from this loop to avoid
* infinite loop.
*/
if (entry->length == 0) {
- pr_err("[%4.4s:0x%02x] Invalid zero length\n", id, entry_id);
+ pr_err("[0x%02x] Invalid zero length\n", entry_id);
+ count = -EINVAL;
goto err;
}
entry = (struct acpi_subtable_header *)
((unsigned long)entry + entry->length);
}
+
if (max_entries && count > max_entries) {
- pr_warn("[%4.4s:0x%02x] ignored %i entries of %i found\n",
- id, entry_id, count - max_entries, count);
+ pr_warn("[0x%02x] ignored %i entries of %i found\n",
+ entry_id, count - max_entries, count);
}
- early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table_header, tbl_size);
- return count;
err:
+ return count;
+}
+
+int __init
+acpi_table_parse_entries(char *id,
+ unsigned long table_size,
+ int entry_id,
+ acpi_tbl_entry_handler handler,
+ unsigned int max_entries)
+{
+ struct acpi_table_header *table_header = NULL;
+ acpi_size tbl_size;
+ int count;
+
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ if (!handler)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ if (strncmp(id, ACPI_SIG_MADT, 4) == 0)
+ acpi_get_table_with_size(id, acpi_apic_instance, &table_header, &tbl_size);
+ else
+ acpi_get_table_with_size(id, 0, &table_header, &tbl_size);
+
+ if (!table_header) {
+ pr_warn("%4.4s not present\n", id);
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+
+ count = acpi_parse_entries(table_size, handler, table_header,
+ entry_id, max_entries);
+
early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table_header, tbl_size);
- return -EINVAL;
+ return count;
}
int __init
diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
index ed1c2d1..a9d79c2 100644
--- a/include/linux/acpi.h
+++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
@@ -124,6 +124,10 @@ int acpi_numa_init (void);
int acpi_table_init (void);
int acpi_table_parse(char *id, acpi_tbl_table_handler handler);
+int __init acpi_parse_entries(unsigned long table_size,
+ acpi_tbl_entry_handler handler,
+ struct acpi_table_header *table_header,
+ int entry_id, unsigned int max_entries);
int __init acpi_table_parse_entries(char *id, unsigned long table_size,
int entry_id,
acpi_tbl_entry_handler handler,
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 12/17] ACPI / table: Add new function to get table entries Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 17:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-03 18:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 14/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse GTDT to initialize arch timer Hanjun Guo
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Tomasz Nowicki, Hanjun Guo
From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
#define acpi_wakeup_address 0
-#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
-
#else
static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
#include <linux/bootmem.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
+#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
#include <asm/cputype.h>
#include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
@@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
}
+void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
+{
+ struct acpi_table_header *table;
+ acpi_status status;
+ acpi_size tbl_size;
+ int err;
+
+ status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
+ const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
+
+ pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
+ if (err)
+ pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
+
+ early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
+}
+
/*
* acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
*
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#include <linux/irqchip.h>
#include <linux/seq_file.h>
#include <linux/ratelimit.h>
+#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
unsigned long irq_err_count;
@@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
void __init init_IRQ(void)
{
irqchip_init();
+
+ if (!handle_arch_irq)
+ acpi_gic_init();
+
if (!handle_arch_irq)
panic("No interrupt controller found.");
}
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/of_address.h>
#include <linux/of_irq.h>
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/percpu.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
+#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
#include <asm/cputype.h>
#include <asm/irq.h>
@@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
#endif
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
+
+static int __init
+gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
+ const unsigned long end)
+{
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
+ u64 gic_cpu_base;
+
+ processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
+
+ if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
+ if (!gic_cpu_base)
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ /*
+ * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
+ * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
+ */
+ if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int __init
+gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
+ const unsigned long end)
+{
+ struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
+
+ dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
+
+ if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
+ if (!dist_phy_base)
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int __init
+gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
+{
+ void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
+ int count;
+
+ /* Collect CPU base addresses */
+ count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
+ gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
+ ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
+ ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
+ if (count < 0) {
+ pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
+ return -EFAULT;
+ } else if (!count) {
+ /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
+ struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
+
+ if (!madt->address)
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
+ * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
+ */
+ count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
+ gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
+ ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
+ ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
+ if (count <= 0) {
+ pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
+ return -EFAULT;
+ } else if (count > 1) {
+ pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
+ if (!cpu_base) {
+ pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
+ if (!dist_base) {
+ pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
+ iounmap(cpu_base);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
+ * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
+ * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
+ */
+ gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
+ irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
+ return 0;
+}
+#endif
diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
+ * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+
+#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
+#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
+
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
+#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES 1
+
+/*
+ * Hard code here, we can not get memory size from MADT (but FDT does),
+ * Actually no need to do that, because this size can be inferred
+ * from GIC spec.
+ */
+#define ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE (SZ_64K)
+#define ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE (SZ_8K)
+
+void acpi_gic_init(void);
+int gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table);
+#else
+static inline void acpi_gic_init(void) { }
+#endif
+
+#endif /* ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_ */
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 17:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 8:28 ` [Linaro-acpi] " Alexander Spyridakis
` (2 more replies)
2014-09-03 18:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
1 sibling, 3 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2014-09-01 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Tomasz Nowicki
On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>
> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>
> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>
> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
> -
> #else
>
> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> #include <linux/smp.h>
> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>
> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
> }
>
> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
> +{
> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
> + acpi_status status;
> + acpi_size tbl_size;
> + int err;
> +
> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
> +
> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> + if (err)
> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
sound like a stuck record?
> +
> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
> *
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>
> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>
> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
> void __init init_IRQ(void)
> {
> irqchip_init();
> +
> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
> + acpi_gic_init();
> +
Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
spot to probe an interrupt controller.
> if (!handle_arch_irq)
> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/percpu.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>
> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> #include <asm/irq.h>
> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>
> #endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
been assigned yet.
> +
> +static int __init
> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
> + const unsigned long end)
> +{
> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
phys_addr_t
> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
> +
> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
> + return -EFAULT;
Is zero an invalid address?
> +
> + /*
> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
> + */
> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init
> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
> + const unsigned long end)
> +{
> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
> +
> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
> +
> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
> + if (!dist_phy_base)
> + return -EFAULT;
Same question about zero.
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int __init
> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> +{
> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
> + int count;
> +
> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
> + if (count < 0) {
> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + } else if (!count) {
> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
> +
> + if (!madt->address)
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
> + */
> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
> + if (count <= 0) {
> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + } else if (count > 1) {
> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
> + if (!cpu_base) {
> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
> + if (!dist_base) {
> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
> + iounmap(cpu_base);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
> + */
> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
> +
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
last remark below.
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
With GICv2? I doubt it.
> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES 1
> +
> +/*
> + * Hard code here, we can not get memory size from MADT (but FDT does),
> + * Actually no need to do that, because this size can be inferred
> + * from GIC spec.
> + */
> +#define ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE (SZ_64K)
I don't know which version of the spec you're looking at, but my version
of the GICv2 spec has a 4kB distributor. Also, it would be good to make
obvious which GIC version this define is about.
> +#define ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE (SZ_8K)
> +
> +void acpi_gic_init(void);
> +int gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table);
> +#else
> +static inline void acpi_gic_init(void) { }
> +#endif
> +
> +#endif /* ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_ */
>
In the end, why do we need a separate file for this? I cannot see
anything that prevents it from being merged with arm-gic.h.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-01 17:35 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-02 8:28 ` Alexander Spyridakis
2014-09-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-09 6:14 ` Jon Masters
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Spyridakis @ 2014-09-02 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier
Cc: Hanjun Guo, linaro-acpi, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Robert Richter, Jason Cooper, Arnd Bergmann, Liviu Dudau,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Randy Dunlap,
Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel, Olof Johansson
On 1 September 2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >
> > ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
> > parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
> > addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
> > abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
> >
> > NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>
> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
Just a heads up for this, I run up to this problem too while testing
and by forcing some values for vgic and arch_timers I could boot a
QEMU guest without problems.
I'll try and see if it will be easy to handle this more properly
instead of hardcoded values.
Regards.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-01 17:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 8:28 ` [Linaro-acpi] " Alexander Spyridakis
@ 2014-09-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-02 13:02 ` Marc Zyngier
` (2 more replies)
2014-09-09 6:14 ` Jon Masters
2 siblings, 3 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Nowicki @ 2014-09-02 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>
>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>
>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>
> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
yes, it is worth mentioning!
>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>
>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>> -
>> #else
>>
>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>
>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>> }
>>
>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>> + acpi_status status;
>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>> +
>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>> + if (err)
>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>
> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
> sound like a stuck record?
There will be another call to GICv3 init:
[...]
err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
if (err)
err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
if (err)
pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
[...]
This is the main reason I put common code here.
>
>> +
>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>> *
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>
>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>
>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>> {
>> irqchip_init();
>> +
>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>> + acpi_gic_init();
>> +
>
> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
beginning.
>
>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>> }
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>> #include <linux/of.h>
>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>
>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>
>> #endif
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>
> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
> been assigned yet.
Sure, will do.
>
>> +
>> +static int __init
>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>> + const unsigned long end)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
>
> phys_addr_t
>
>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>> +
>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>
> Is zero an invalid address?
Yeah, good point.
>
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>> + */
>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int __init
>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>> + const unsigned long end)
>> +{
>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>> +
>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>> +
>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>
> Same question about zero.
>
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int __init
>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>> +{
>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>> + int count;
>> +
>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>> + if (count < 0) {
>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + } else if (!count) {
>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>> +
>> + if (!madt->address)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>> + */
>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>> + if (count <= 0) {
>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + } else if (count > 1) {
>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>> + if (!cpu_base) {
>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>> + if (!dist_base) {
>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>> + */
>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>> +
>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>
> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
> last remark below.
Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
<linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>
> With GICv2? I doubt it.
I will create macro for each GIC driver:
#define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
#define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>
>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES 1
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Hard code here, we can not get memory size from MADT (but FDT does),
>> + * Actually no need to do that, because this size can be inferred
>> + * from GIC spec.
>> + */
>> +#define ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE (SZ_64K)
>
> I don't know which version of the spec you're looking at, but my version
> of the GICv2 spec has a 4kB distributor. Also, it would be good to make
> obvious which GIC version this define is about.
OK
>
>> +#define ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE (SZ_8K)
>> +
>> +void acpi_gic_init(void);
>> +int gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table);
>> +#else
>> +static inline void acpi_gic_init(void) { }
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +#endif /* ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_ */
>>
>
> In the end, why do we need a separate file for this? I cannot see
> anything that prevents it from being merged with arm-gic.h.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
headers inclusion:
[...]
#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
[...]
err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
if (err)
err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
if (err)
pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
[...]
So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
be less painfully.
Regards,
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-02 13:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 15:45 ` Hanjun Guo
` (2 more replies)
2014-09-02 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-11 11:48 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 3 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2014-09-02 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomasz Nowicki
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>
>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>
>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>
> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>
>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>> -
>>> #else
>>>
>>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>
>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>> + acpi_status status;
>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>>> + int err;
>>> +
>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>> +
>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>
>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>> sound like a stuck record?
>
> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
> [...]
> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
> if (err)
> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> if (err)
> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> [...]
> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>> *
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>
>>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>
>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>> {
>>> irqchip_init();
>>> +
>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>> +
>>
>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>
> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
> beginning.
No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
"because we're different" is the right way.
There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>>
>>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>
>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>>
>>> #endif
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>>
>> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
>> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
>> been assigned yet.
> Sure, will do.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> +static int __init
>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>> +{
>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
>>
>> phys_addr_t
>>
>>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>>> +
>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>
>> Is zero an invalid address?
> Yeah, good point.
>>
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>>> + */
>>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> +
>>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int __init
>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>> +{
>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>>> +
>>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>>> +
>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>
>> Same question about zero.
>>
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int __init
>>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>> +{
>>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>>> + int count;
>>> +
>>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>> + if (count < 0) {
>>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + } else if (!count) {
>>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>> +
>>> + if (!madt->address)
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> +
>>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>>> + */
>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>>> + if (count <= 0) {
>>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> + } else if (count > 1) {
>>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>>> + if (!cpu_base) {
>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>>> + if (!dist_base) {
>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>>> + */
>>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>> + *
>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>> +
>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>
>> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
>> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
>> last remark below.
> Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
> <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>
>>
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>
>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>>
>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES 1
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Hard code here, we can not get memory size from MADT (but FDT does),
>>> + * Actually no need to do that, because this size can be inferred
>>> + * from GIC spec.
>>> + */
>>> +#define ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE (SZ_64K)
>>
>> I don't know which version of the spec you're looking at, but my version
>> of the GICv2 spec has a 4kB distributor. Also, it would be good to make
>> obvious which GIC version this define is about.
> OK
>
>>
>>> +#define ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE (SZ_8K)
>>> +
>>> +void acpi_gic_init(void);
>>> +int gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table);
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline void acpi_gic_init(void) { }
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> +#endif /* ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_ */
>>>
>>
>> In the end, why do we need a separate file for this? I cannot see
>> anything that prevents it from being merged with arm-gic.h.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> M.
>>
> Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
> GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
> headers inclusion:
>
> [...]
> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
> [...]
> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
> if (err)
> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> if (err)
> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> [...]
> So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
> be less painfully.
Yes, and this is exactly why I pushed back on that last time. I'll
continue saying that interrupt controllers should be self-probing, with
ACPI as they are with DT.
Even with the restrictions of ACPI and SBSA, we end-up with at least 2
main families of interrupt controllers (GICv2 and GICv3), both with a
number of "interesting" variations (GICv2m and GICv4, to only mention
those I'm directly involved with).
I can safely predict that the above will become a tangled mess within 18
months, and the idea of littering the arch code with a bunch of
hardcoded "if (blah())" doesn't fill me with joy and confidence.
In summary: we have the infrastructure already, just use it.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 13:02 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-02 15:45 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-02 15:59 ` Marc Zyngier
` (2 more replies)
2014-09-03 9:26 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-11 13:43 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 3 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-02 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 2014年09月02日 21:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>>>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>>
>>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>> -
>>>> #else
>>>>
>>>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>>> + acpi_status status;
>>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>>>> + int err;
>>>> +
>>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>>> +
>>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>>> sound like a stuck record?
>> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
>> [...]
>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>> [...]
>> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>>> *
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>> {
>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>> +
>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>> beginning.
> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
> "because we're different" is the right way.
>
> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>
>>>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>>>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>>>
>>>> #endif
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>>> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
>>> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
>>> been assigned yet.
>> Sure, will do.
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __init
>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>>>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
>>> phys_addr_t
>>>
>>>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>>>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> Is zero an invalid address?
>> Yeah, good point.
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>>>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __init
>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>>>> +
>>>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>>>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>> Same question about zero.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +int __init
>>>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>>> +{
>>>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>>>> + int count;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>>> + if (count < 0) {
>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> + } else if (!count) {
>>>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!madt->address)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>>>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>>>> + */
>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>>>> + if (count <= 0) {
>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> + } else if (count > 1) {
>>>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>>>> + if (!cpu_base) {
>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>>>> + if (!dist_base) {
>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>>>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>>>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>>>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>>>> + */
>>>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>>>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +#endif
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>> + *
>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
>>> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
>>> last remark below.
>> Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
>> <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 15:45 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-02 15:59 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 16:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-09-03 10:30 ` Marc Zyngier
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2014-09-02 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 02/09/14 16:45, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014年09月02日 21:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>>>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>>>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>>> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>>>>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>>>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>>>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>>>
>>>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>>> -
>>>>> #else
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>>>> + acpi_status status;
>>>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>>>>> + int err;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>>> + if (err)
>>>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>>>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>>>> sound like a stuck record?
>>> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
>>> [...]
>>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>>> if (err)
>>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>> if (err)
>>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>> [...]
>>> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>>>> *
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>>> +
>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>>> beginning.
>> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
>> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
>> "because we're different" is the right way.
>>
>> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
>> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
>> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>>
>>>>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>>>>> }
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>>>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>>>>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>>>>
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>>>> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
>>>> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
>>>> been assigned yet.
>>> Sure, will do.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>>>>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
>>>> phys_addr_t
>>>>
>>>>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>>>>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> Is zero an invalid address?
>>> Yeah, good point.
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>>>>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>>>>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> Same question about zero.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int __init
>>>>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>>>>> + int count;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>>>> + if (count < 0) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> + } else if (!count) {
>>>>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>>>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!madt->address)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>>>>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>>>>> + if (count <= 0) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> + } else if (count > 1) {
>>>>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> + if (!cpu_base) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> + if (!dist_base) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>>>>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>>>>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>>>>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>>>>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
>>>> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
>>>> last remark below.
>>> Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
>>> <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>
> This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
> for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
> scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
> how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
> define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).
Then it is worth mentioning that this is an arbitrary limit, unrelated
to what the architecture describes.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 15:45 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-02 15:59 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-02 16:11 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-09-03 10:30 ` Marc Zyngier
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2014-09-02 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Marc Zyngier
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Tomasz Nowicki, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 02/09/14 16:45, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014年09月02日 21:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>>>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>>>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>>> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>>>>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>>>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>>>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>>>
>>>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>>> -
>>>>> #else
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>>>> + acpi_status status;
>>>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>>>>> + int err;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>>> + if (err)
>>>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>>>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>>>> sound like a stuck record?
>>> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
>>> [...]
>>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>>> if (err)
>>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>> if (err)
>>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>> [...]
>>> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>>>> *
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>>> +
>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>>> beginning.
>> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
>> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
>> "because we're different" is the right way.
>>
>> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
>> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
>> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>>
>>>>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>>>>> }
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>>>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>>>>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>>>>
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>>>> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
>>>> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
>>>> been assigned yet.
>>> Sure, will do.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>>>>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
>>>> phys_addr_t
>>>>
>>>>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>>>>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> Is zero an invalid address?
>>> Yeah, good point.
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>>>>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>>>>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> Same question about zero.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int __init
>>>>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>>>>> + int count;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>>>> + if (count < 0) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> + } else if (!count) {
>>>>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>>>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!madt->address)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>>>>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>>>>> + if (count <= 0) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> + } else if (count > 1) {
>>>>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> + if (!cpu_base) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> + if (!dist_base) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>>>>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>>>>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>>>>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>>>>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
>>>> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
>>>> last remark below.
>>> Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
>>> <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>
> This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
> for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
> scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
> how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
> define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).
>
This is the exact reason I kept mentioning *not to link it with GIC
architecture* in my previous reviews. It's just *max possible entries in
MADT*.
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 15:45 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-02 15:59 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 16:11 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2014-09-03 10:30 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-03 11:17 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 6:21 ` Jon Masters
2 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2014-09-03 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 02/09/14 16:45, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014年09月02日 21:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>>>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>>>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>>> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>>>>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>>>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>>>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>>>
>>>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>>> -
>>>>> #else
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>>>> + acpi_status status;
>>>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>>>>> + int err;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>>> + if (err)
>>>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>>>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>>>> sound like a stuck record?
>>> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
>>> [...]
>>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>>> if (err)
>>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>> if (err)
>>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>> [...]
>>> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>>>> *
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>>> +
>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>>> beginning.
>> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
>> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
>> "because we're different" is the right way.
>>
>> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
>> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
>> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>>
>>>>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>>>>> }
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>>>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>>>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>>>>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>>>>
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>>>> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
>>>> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
>>>> been assigned yet.
>>> Sure, will do.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>>>>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
>>>> phys_addr_t
>>>>
>>>>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>>>>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> Is zero an invalid address?
>>> Yeah, good point.
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>>>>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>>>>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> Same question about zero.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int __init
>>>>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>>>>> + int count;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>>>> + if (count < 0) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> + } else if (!count) {
>>>>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>>>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!madt->address)
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>>>>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>>>>> + if (count <= 0) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>>> + } else if (count > 1) {
>>>>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> + if (!cpu_base) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> + if (!dist_base) {
>>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>>>>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>>>>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>>>>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>>>>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
>>>> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
>>>> last remark below.
>>> Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
>>> <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>
> This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
> for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
> scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
> how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
> define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).
Also, with GICv3++, there is no such thing as a memory-mapped CPU
interface anymore. What you get is a bunch of redistributors (one per
CPU). I assume what you have here actually describe the redistributors,
and its name should reflect that.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 10:30 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-03 11:17 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-04 14:03 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-09 6:21 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-03 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Sudeep Holla
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>>>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
>>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>> This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
>> for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
>> scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
>> how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
>> define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).
> Also, with GICv3++, there is no such thing as a memory-mapped CPU
> interface anymore. What you get is a bunch of redistributors (one per
> CPU). I assume what you have here actually describe the redistributors,
> and its name should reflect that.
As Sudeep said, it is not to link to GIC architecture, so I think we can keep
it stick with ACPI spec, in ACPI spec, it called "GICC structure" (section 5.2.12.14
in ACPI 5.1), so we can name it as ACPI_MAX_GICC_STRUCTURE_ENTRIES no matter
GICv2 or GICv3/4 (with GICv2, it may have more than 8 entries with some disabled
ones, will no more than 8 enabled entries).
What do you think?
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 11:17 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-04 14:03 ` Hanjun Guo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-04 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Sudeep Holla
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On 2014年09月03日 19:17, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>>>>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>>>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
>>>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>>> This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
>>> for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
>>> scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
>>> how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
>>> define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).
>> Also, with GICv3++, there is no such thing as a memory-mapped CPU
>> interface anymore. What you get is a bunch of redistributors (one per
>> CPU). I assume what you have here actually describe the redistributors,
>> and its name should reflect that.
> As Sudeep said, it is not to link to GIC architecture, so I think we can keep
> it stick with ACPI spec, in ACPI spec, it called "GICC structure" (section 5.2.12.14
> in ACPI 5.1), so we can name it as ACPI_MAX_GICC_STRUCTURE_ENTRIES no matter
> GICv2 or GICv3/4 (with GICv2, it may have more than 8 entries with some disabled
> ones, will no more than 8 enabled entries).
>
> What do you think?
After more consideration on this, we think that we can remove those macros which
introduce confusions, and just pass 0 to ACPI core for the max entries of GICC structure
or GICR structure, ACPI core will continue scan all the entries in MADT with 0 passed.
With that, we can avoid such name confusions for all GIC related structures in MADT
no matter GICv2 or GICv3/4.
Thanks
Hanjun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 10:30 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-03 11:17 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-09 6:21 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Hanjun Guo
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On 09/03/2014 06:30 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/09/14 16:45, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
>> for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
>> scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
>> how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
>> define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).
>
> Also, with GICv3++, there is no such thing as a memory-mapped CPU
> interface anymore. What you get is a bunch of redistributors (one per
> CPU). I assume what you have here actually describe the redistributors,
> and its name should reflect that.
(though you could have a GICv3/v4 system providing a legacy GICv2(m)
compatibility mode having the CPU memory interfaces still defined)
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 13:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 15:45 ` Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-03 9:26 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-03 14:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-11 13:43 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Nowicki @ 2014-09-03 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On 02.09.2014 15:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>>
>>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>>
>> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>>>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>>
>>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>> -
>>>> #else
>>>>
>>>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>>> + acpi_status status;
>>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>>>> + int err;
>>>> +
>>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>>> +
>>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>
>>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>>> sound like a stuck record?
>>
>> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
>> [...]
>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>> [...]
>> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>>> *
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>> {
>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>
>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>> beginning.
>
> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
> "because we're different" is the right way.
>
> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>
>>>
>>>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>>>> #include <linux/of.h>
>>>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
>>>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>> #include <asm/irq.h>
>>>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>>>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>>>
>>>> #endif
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>>>
>>> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
>>> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
>>> been assigned yet.
>> Sure, will do.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __init
>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>>>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
>>>
>>> phys_addr_t
>>>
>>>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>>>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>
>>> Is zero an invalid address?
>> Yeah, good point.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>>>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int __init
>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>> + const unsigned long end)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>>>> +
>>>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>>>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>
>>> Same question about zero.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +int __init
>>>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>>> +{
>>>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>>>> + int count;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>>> + if (count < 0) {
>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> + } else if (!count) {
>>>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!madt->address)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>>>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>>>> + */
>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>>>> + if (count <= 0) {
>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> + } else if (count > 1) {
>>>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>>>> + if (!cpu_base) {
>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>>>> + if (!dist_base) {
>>>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>>>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>>>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>>>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>>>> + */
>>>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>>>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +#endif
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>> + *
>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>
>>> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
>>> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
>>> last remark below.
>> Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
>> <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>
>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>
> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>
>>>
>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES 1
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Hard code here, we can not get memory size from MADT (but FDT does),
>>>> + * Actually no need to do that, because this size can be inferred
>>>> + * from GIC spec.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#define ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE (SZ_64K)
>>>
>>> I don't know which version of the spec you're looking at, but my version
>>> of the GICv2 spec has a 4kB distributor. Also, it would be good to make
>>> obvious which GIC version this define is about.
>> OK
>>
>>>
>>>> +#define ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE (SZ_8K)
>>>> +
>>>> +void acpi_gic_init(void);
>>>> +int gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table);
>>>> +#else
>>>> +static inline void acpi_gic_init(void) { }
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>> +#endif /* ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_ */
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the end, why do we need a separate file for this? I cannot see
>>> anything that prevents it from being merged with arm-gic.h.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> M.
>>>
>> Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
>> GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
>> headers inclusion:
>>
>> [...]
>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
>> [...]
>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>> [...]
>> So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
>> be less painfully.
>
> Yes, and this is exactly why I pushed back on that last time. I'll
> continue saying that interrupt controllers should be self-probing, with
> ACPI as they are with DT.
>
> Even with the restrictions of ACPI and SBSA, we end-up with at least 2
> main families of interrupt controllers (GICv2 and GICv3), both with a
> number of "interesting" variations (GICv2m and GICv4, to only mention
> those I'm directly involved with).
>
> I can safely predict that the above will become a tangled mess within 18
> months, and the idea of littering the arch code with a bunch of
> hardcoded "if (blah())" doesn't fill me with joy and confidence.
>
> In summary: we have the infrastructure already, just use it.
We had that discussion but I see we still don't have consensus here. It
would be good to know our direction before we prepare next patch
version. Arnd any comments on this from you side?
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 9:26 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-03 14:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-05 8:52 ` Tomasz Nowicki
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2014-09-03 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomasz Nowicki
Cc: Marc Zyngier, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On Wednesday 03 September 2014 11:26:14 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 02.09.2014 15:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> >> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
> >>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
> >>>> {
> >>>> irqchip_init();
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
> >>>> + acpi_gic_init();
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
> >>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
> >>
> >> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
> >> beginning.
> >
> > No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
> > we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
> > "because we're different" is the right way.
> >
> > There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
> > different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
> > put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
> >> Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
> >> GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
> >> headers inclusion:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> >> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
> >> [...]
> >> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
> >> if (err)
> >> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> >> if (err)
> >> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> >> [...]
> >> So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
> >> be less painfully.
> >
> > Yes, and this is exactly why I pushed back on that last time. I'll
> > continue saying that interrupt controllers should be self-probing, with
> > ACPI as they are with DT.
> >
> > Even with the restrictions of ACPI and SBSA, we end-up with at least 2
> > main families of interrupt controllers (GICv2 and GICv3), both with a
> > number of "interesting" variations (GICv2m and GICv4, to only mention
> > those I'm directly involved with).
> >
> > I can safely predict that the above will become a tangled mess within 18
> > months, and the idea of littering the arch code with a bunch of
> > hardcoded "if (blah())" doesn't fill me with joy and confidence.
> >
> > In summary: we have the infrastructure already, just use it.
>
> We had that discussion but I see we still don't have consensus here. It
> would be good to know our direction before we prepare next patch
> version. Arnd any comments on this from you side?
I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 14:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2014-09-05 8:52 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-05 9:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-09 6:27 ` Jon Masters
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Nowicki @ 2014-09-05 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Marc Zyngier, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 03.09.2014 16:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 11:26:14 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 02.09.2014 15:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>>>
>>>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>>>> beginning.
>>>
>>> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
>>> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
>>> "because we're different" is the right way.
>>>
>>> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
>>> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
>>> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>
>
>>>> Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
>>>> GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
>>>> headers inclusion:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
>>>> [...]
>>>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>> [...]
>>>> So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
>>>> be less painfully.
>>>
>>> Yes, and this is exactly why I pushed back on that last time. I'll
>>> continue saying that interrupt controllers should be self-probing, with
>>> ACPI as they are with DT.
>>>
>>> Even with the restrictions of ACPI and SBSA, we end-up with at least 2
>>> main families of interrupt controllers (GICv2 and GICv3), both with a
>>> number of "interesting" variations (GICv2m and GICv4, to only mention
>>> those I'm directly involved with).
>>>
>>> I can safely predict that the above will become a tangled mess within 18
>>> months, and the idea of littering the arch code with a bunch of
>>> hardcoded "if (blah())" doesn't fill me with joy and confidence.
>>>
>>> In summary: we have the infrastructure already, just use it.
>>
>> We had that discussion but I see we still don't have consensus here. It
>> would be good to know our direction before we prepare next patch
>> version. Arnd any comments on this from you side?
>
> I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
> I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
> than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
> because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
>
> In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
> identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
> parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
> if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
> for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
Yes, it is just one table with bunch of different subtables types. Since
GIC identification register is at different offset across GICv1/2 and
GICv3, the probe logic seems to be slightly different. IMO, we should
look into our MADT and try GICv3 fist and then GICv2, that means
presence of redistributor entries suggests GICv3/4. Its absence means we
need to look for GICC subtables and then call GICv2 init.
>
> It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
> that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
> call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
> parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
> drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
> drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
We already had tried making MADT parser common for all GICs in the
separate file (outside GIC driver), it did not end up well. In the light
of above comment, the logic will be complex and some GIC local strutures
need to be exported:
1. Check redistributor entries.
2. If none exist, as fallback, check GICC entries, there are
redistributor base address assigned to CPU. Unfortunately it has no
register set size so ioremap only two pages (RD + SGI) check if we
support VLPI and extend ioremap if true. We cannot operate on GIC
register outside GIC driver so that requires another exported GICv3
function.
3. Jump to redistributor part if we are OK so far, if not, then we start
playing with GICC enries and look for cpu base addresses.
Honestly, apart from distributor parsing logic, there is no common code.
As you can see, current gic_v2_acpi_init() logic is quite easy to
follow. And gic_v3_acpi_init() inside of GICv3 driver is easy too. I
might not see other solutions but I am open to other suggestions, so
please correct me in that case.
Regards,
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 14:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-05 8:52 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-05 9:47 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-05 10:13 ` [Linaro-acpi] " Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-09 6:27 ` Jon Masters
2 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2014-09-05 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On 03/09/14 15:57, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 11:26:14 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 02.09.2014 15:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>>>
>>>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>>>> beginning.
>>>
>>> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
>>> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
>>> "because we're different" is the right way.
>>>
>>> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
>>> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
>>> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>
>
>>>> Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
>>>> GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
>>>> headers inclusion:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
>>>> [...]
>>>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>> [...]
>>>> So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
>>>> be less painfully.
>>>
>>> Yes, and this is exactly why I pushed back on that last time. I'll
>>> continue saying that interrupt controllers should be self-probing, with
>>> ACPI as they are with DT.
>>>
>>> Even with the restrictions of ACPI and SBSA, we end-up with at least 2
>>> main families of interrupt controllers (GICv2 and GICv3), both with a
>>> number of "interesting" variations (GICv2m and GICv4, to only mention
>>> those I'm directly involved with).
>>>
>>> I can safely predict that the above will become a tangled mess within 18
>>> months, and the idea of littering the arch code with a bunch of
>>> hardcoded "if (blah())" doesn't fill me with joy and confidence.
>>>
>>> In summary: we have the infrastructure already, just use it.
>>
>> We had that discussion but I see we still don't have consensus here. It
>> would be good to know our direction before we prepare next patch
>> version. Arnd any comments on this from you side?
>
> I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
> I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
> than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
> because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
I'm not suggesting that we should support more than the ACPI spec says.
And that's certainly the whole point of a spec, isn't it? ACPI says what
we support, and we're not going any further. I'm just saying that we
shouldn't make the maintenance burden heavier, and the code nothing
short of disgusting. Using our current infrastructure doesn't mean we're
going to support GIcv2.37.
> In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
> identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
> parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
> if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
> for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
This is not the way I read the spec. Table 5-46 (Interrupt Controller
Structure) tells you if you have a CPU interface (GICv1/v2) or a
redistributor (GICv3/v4). That's enough to know whether or not you
should carry on probing a particular controller.
The various GIC versions don't really have a unified memory map anyway
(well, none that you can rely on), and you really have to rely on ACPI
to tell you what you have.
> It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
> that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
> call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
> parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
> drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
> drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
I don't think so you can make that common code very easily. The
information required by both drivers is organized differently.
If it was, I'd have done that for the DT binding.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-05 9:47 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-05 10:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-05 10:36 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-05 10:39 ` Marc Zyngier
0 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2014-09-05 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linaro-acpi
Cc: Marc Zyngier, Catalin Marinas, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Robert Richter, Jason Cooper, Will Deacon, Mark Brown,
Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Randy Dunlap, Rafael J. Wysocki,
linux-kernel, Olof Johansson
On Friday 05 September 2014 10:47:30 Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >
> > I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
> > I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
> > than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
> > because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
>
> I'm not suggesting that we should support more than the ACPI spec says.
> And that's certainly the whole point of a spec, isn't it? ACPI says what
> we support, and we're not going any further. I'm just saying that we
> shouldn't make the maintenance burden heavier, and the code nothing
> short of disgusting. Using our current infrastructure doesn't mean we're
> going to support GIcv2.37.
Ok
> > In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
> > identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
> > parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
> > if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
> > for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
>
> This is not the way I read the spec. Table 5-46 (Interrupt Controller
> Structure) tells you if you have a CPU interface (GICv1/v2) or a
> redistributor (GICv3/v4). That's enough to know whether or not you
> should carry on probing a particular controller.
Ah, good. I missed that.
> The various GIC versions don't really have a unified memory map anyway
> (well, none that you can rely on), and you really have to rely on ACPI
> to tell you what you have.
So we are back to needing to support two different irqchip drivers
(v1/v2/v2m and v3/v4), instead of five or more, right?
> > It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
> > that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
> > call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
> > parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
> > drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
> > drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
>
> I don't think so you can make that common code very easily. The
> information required by both drivers is organized differently.
> If it was, I'd have done that for the DT binding.
I see, and that's also what Tomasz just explained. So can we just
have one an irqchip_init() function doing this:?
if (dt)
of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table);
else if (acpi) {
read cpu-interface and redistributor address from acpi tables
if (cpu-interface)
gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
else if(redistributor)
gic_v3_acpi_init(table)
}
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-05 10:13 ` [Linaro-acpi] " Arnd Bergmann
@ 2014-09-05 10:36 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-05 10:39 ` Marc Zyngier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Nowicki @ 2014-09-05 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, linaro-acpi
Cc: Marc Zyngier, Catalin Marinas, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Robert Richter, Jason Cooper, Will Deacon, Mark Brown,
Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, Randy Dunlap, Rafael J. Wysocki,
linux-kernel, Olof Johansson
On 05.09.2014 12:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 05 September 2014 10:47:30 Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>
>>> I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
>>> I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
>>> than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
>>> because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting that we should support more than the ACPI spec says.
>> And that's certainly the whole point of a spec, isn't it? ACPI says what
>> we support, and we're not going any further. I'm just saying that we
>> shouldn't make the maintenance burden heavier, and the code nothing
>> short of disgusting. Using our current infrastructure doesn't mean we're
>> going to support GIcv2.37.
>
> Ok
>
>>> In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
>>> identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
>>> parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
>>> if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
>>> for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
>>
>> This is not the way I read the spec. Table 5-46 (Interrupt Controller
>> Structure) tells you if you have a CPU interface (GICv1/v2) or a
>> redistributor (GICv3/v4). That's enough to know whether or not you
>> should carry on probing a particular controller.
>
> Ah, good. I missed that.
>
>> The various GIC versions don't really have a unified memory map anyway
>> (well, none that you can rely on), and you really have to rely on ACPI
>> to tell you what you have.
>
> So we are back to needing to support two different irqchip drivers
> (v1/v2/v2m and v3/v4), instead of five or more, right?
>
>>> It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
>>> that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
>>> call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
>>> parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
>>> drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
>>> drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
>>
>> I don't think so you can make that common code very easily. The
>> information required by both drivers is organized differently.
>> If it was, I'd have done that for the DT binding.
>
> I see, and that's also what Tomasz just explained. So can we just
> have one an irqchip_init() function doing this:?
>
> if (dt)
> of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table);
> else if (acpi) {
> read cpu-interface and redistributor address from acpi tables
> if (cpu-interface)
> gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> else if(redistributor)
> gic_v3_acpi_init(table)
> }
>
It is pretty much the same as:
if (dt)
of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table);
else if (acpi) {
err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table) {
read redistributor address from acpi tables
[...]
}
if (err) {
err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table) {
read cpu-interface address from acpi tables
[...]
}
}
}
What basically is my current implementation (well, without GICv3 support
but that will be next step).
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-05 10:13 ` [Linaro-acpi] " Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-05 10:36 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-05 10:39 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-05 10:49 ` Tomasz Nowicki
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2014-09-05 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: linaro-acpi, Catalin Marinas, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi, Robert Richter,
Jason Cooper, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas,
linux-arm-kernel, Randy Dunlap, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel,
Olof Johansson
On 05/09/14 11:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 05 September 2014 10:47:30 Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>
>>> I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
>>> I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
>>> than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
>>> because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
>>
>> I'm not suggesting that we should support more than the ACPI spec says.
>> And that's certainly the whole point of a spec, isn't it? ACPI says what
>> we support, and we're not going any further. I'm just saying that we
>> shouldn't make the maintenance burden heavier, and the code nothing
>> short of disgusting. Using our current infrastructure doesn't mean we're
>> going to support GIcv2.37.
>
> Ok
>
>>> In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
>>> identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
>>> parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
>>> if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
>>> for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
>>
>> This is not the way I read the spec. Table 5-46 (Interrupt Controller
>> Structure) tells you if you have a CPU interface (GICv1/v2) or a
>> redistributor (GICv3/v4). That's enough to know whether or not you
>> should carry on probing a particular controller.
>
> Ah, good. I missed that.
>
>> The various GIC versions don't really have a unified memory map anyway
>> (well, none that you can rely on), and you really have to rely on ACPI
>> to tell you what you have.
>
> So we are back to needing to support two different irqchip drivers
> (v1/v2/v2m and v3/v4), instead of five or more, right?
As long as we make sure that the variants are directly probed from the
"canonical" driver (v2m from v2, ITS and v4 from v3), then we're OK.
>>> It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
>>> that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
>>> call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
>>> parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
>>> drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
>>> drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
>>
>> I don't think so you can make that common code very easily. The
>> information required by both drivers is organized differently.
>> If it was, I'd have done that for the DT binding.
>
> I see, and that's also what Tomasz just explained. So can we just
> have one an irqchip_init() function doing this:?
>
> if (dt)
> of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table);
> else if (acpi) {
> read cpu-interface and redistributor address from acpi tables
> if (cpu-interface)
> gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> else if(redistributor)
> gic_v3_acpi_init(table)
> }
That'd be better, but that only considers the basic architecture. GICv2m
and GICv3's ITS bring additional complexity (and their own table
parsing). At that stage, I'm not sure how much commonality we're left with.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-05 10:39 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-05 10:49 ` Tomasz Nowicki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Nowicki @ 2014-09-05 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: linaro-acpi, Catalin Marinas, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi, Robert Richter,
Jason Cooper, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas,
linux-arm-kernel, Randy Dunlap, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel,
Olof Johansson
On 05.09.2014 12:39, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 05/09/14 11:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 05 September 2014 10:47:30 Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I still prefer being explicit here for the same reason I mentioned earlier:
>>>> I want it to be very clear that we don't support arbitrary irqchips other
>>>> than the ones in the APCI specification. The infrastructure exists on DT
>>>> because we have to support a large number of incompatible irqchips.
>>>
>>> I'm not suggesting that we should support more than the ACPI spec says.
>>> And that's certainly the whole point of a spec, isn't it? ACPI says what
>>> we support, and we're not going any further. I'm just saying that we
>>> shouldn't make the maintenance burden heavier, and the code nothing
>>> short of disgusting. Using our current infrastructure doesn't mean we're
>>> going to support GIcv2.37.
>>
>> Ok
>>
>>>> In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
>>>> identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
>>>> parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
>>>> if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
>>>> for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
>>>
>>> This is not the way I read the spec. Table 5-46 (Interrupt Controller
>>> Structure) tells you if you have a CPU interface (GICv1/v2) or a
>>> redistributor (GICv3/v4). That's enough to know whether or not you
>>> should carry on probing a particular controller.
>>
>> Ah, good. I missed that.
>>
>>> The various GIC versions don't really have a unified memory map anyway
>>> (well, none that you can rely on), and you really have to rely on ACPI
>>> to tell you what you have.
>>
>> So we are back to needing to support two different irqchip drivers
>> (v1/v2/v2m and v3/v4), instead of five or more, right?
>
> As long as we make sure that the variants are directly probed from the
> "canonical" driver (v2m from v2, ITS and v4 from v3), then we're OK.
Yes, that is our intention.
>
>>>> It does seem wrong to parse the tables in the irq-gic.c file though:
>>>> that part can well be common across the various gic versions and then
>>>> call into either irq-gic.c or irq-gic-v3.c for the version specific
>>>> parts. Whether we put that common code into drivers/irqchip/irqchip.c,
>>>> drivers/irqchip/gic-common.c, drivers/irqchip/irq-acpi-gic.c or
>>>> drivers/acpi/irq-gic.c I don't care at all.
>>>
>>> I don't think so you can make that common code very easily. The
>>> information required by both drivers is organized differently.
>>> If it was, I'd have done that for the DT binding.
>>
>> I see, and that's also what Tomasz just explained. So can we just
>> have one an irqchip_init() function doing this:?
>>
>> if (dt)
>> of_irq_init(__irqchip_of_table);
>> else if (acpi) {
>> read cpu-interface and redistributor address from acpi tables
>> if (cpu-interface)
>> gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>> else if(redistributor)
>> gic_v3_acpi_init(table)
>> }
>
> That'd be better, but that only considers the basic architecture. GICv2m
> and GICv3's ITS bring additional complexity (and their own table
> parsing). At that stage, I'm not sure how much commonality we're left with.
Right, my local ACPI GICv3 support assumes to probe ITS from
gic_v3_acpi_init() body.
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 14:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-05 8:52 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-05 9:47 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-09 6:27 ` Jon Masters
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, Tomasz Nowicki
Cc: Marc Zyngier, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel
On 09/03/2014 10:57 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 11:26:14 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> In particular, the ACPI tables describing the irqchip have no way to
> identify the GIC at all, if I read the spec correctly, you have to
> parse the tables, ioremap the registers and then read the ID to know
> if you have GICv1/v2/v2m/v3/v4. There doesn't seem to be any "device"
> for the GIC that a hypothetical probe function would be based on.
(aside) I have already noticed this and am separately raising a request
to have this dealt with in the specification at a later time. I believe
it's fairly contrived, since I don't think it'll be at all common to
have a GICv3/v4 IP implementation that has a CPU interface defined.
The problem (not now, but in later implementations that actually have
GICv3/v4 hardware is making assumptions since even a GICv3 or GICv4
system could implement a legacy compatibility mode in which the memory
register interface is defined and mappable so you would be valid in
having defined memory addresses in the MADT linked structures then.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 13:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 15:45 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-03 9:26 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-11 13:43 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-11 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Tomasz Nowicki
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 14:02:31 +0100, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >>>
> >>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
> >>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
> >>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
> >>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
> >>>
> >>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
> >>
> >> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
> >> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
> >> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
> >
> > yes, it is worth mentioning!
> >
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
> >>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
> >>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
> >>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
> >>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
> >>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
> >>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
> >>>
> >>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
> >>> -
> >>> #else
> >>>
> >>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> >>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> >>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> >>> #include <linux/smp.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
> >>>
> >>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> >>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> >>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> >>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
> >>> + acpi_status status;
> >>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
> >>> + int err;
> >>> +
> >>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
> >>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
> >>> +
> >>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
> >>> + return;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> >>> + if (err)
> >>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> >>
> >> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
> >> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
> >> sound like a stuck record?
> >
> > There will be another call to GICv3 init:
> > [...]
> > err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
> > if (err)
> > err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> > if (err)
> > pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> > [...]
> > This is the main reason I put common code here.
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> /*
> >>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
> >>> *
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> >>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> >>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> >>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
> >>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> >>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
> >>>
> >>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
> >>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
> >>> {
> >>> irqchip_init();
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
> >>> + acpi_gic_init();
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
> >> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
> >
> > irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
> > beginning.
>
> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
> "because we're different" is the right way.
>
> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>
> >>
> >>> if (!handle_arch_irq)
> >>> panic("No interrupt controller found.");
> >>> }
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> >>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> >>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
> >>> #include <linux/of.h>
> >>> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> >>> #include <linux/of_irq.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> >>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> >>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >>> #include <linux/percpu.h>
> >>> #include <linux/slab.h>
> >>> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
> >>> #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
> >>>
> >>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> >>> #include <asm/irq.h>
> >>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
> >>> IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
> >>>
> >>> #endif
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> >>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
> >>
> >> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
> >> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
> >> been assigned yet.
> > Sure, will do.
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +static int __init
> >>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
> >>> + const unsigned long end)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
> >>> + u64 gic_cpu_base;
> >>
> >> phys_addr_t
> >>
> >>> + processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
> >>> + if (!gic_cpu_base)
> >>> + return -EFAULT;
> >>
> >> Is zero an invalid address?
> > Yeah, good point.
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
> >>> + * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
> >>> + return -EFAULT;
> >>> +
> >>> + cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static int __init
> >>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
> >>> + const unsigned long end)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
> >>> +
> >>> + dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> +
> >>> + dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
> >>> + if (!dist_phy_base)
> >>> + return -EFAULT;
> >>
> >> Same question about zero.
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +int __init
> >>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> >>> +{
> >>> + void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
> >>> + int count;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
> >>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
> >>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
> >>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
> >>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
> >>> + if (count < 0) {
> >>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
> >>> + return -EFAULT;
> >>> + } else if (!count) {
> >>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
> >>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!madt->address)
> >>> + return -EFAULT;
> >>> +
> >>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
> >>> + * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
> >>> + */
> >>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
> >>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
> >>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
> >>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
> >>> + if (count <= 0) {
> >>> + pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
> >>> + return -EFAULT;
> >>> + } else if (count > 1) {
> >>> + pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
> >>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
> >>> + if (!cpu_base) {
> >>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
> >>> + if (!dist_base) {
> >>> + pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
> >>> + iounmap(cpu_base);
> >>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
> >>> + * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
> >>> + * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
> >>> + */
> >>> + gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
> >>> + irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +#endif
> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
> >>> + * Author: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >>> + *
> >>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> >>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> >>> + */
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
> >>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
> >>> +
> >>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> >>
> >> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
> >> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
> >> last remark below.
> > Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
> > <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
> >
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> >>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
> >>
> >> With GICv2? I doubt it.
> > I will create macro for each GIC driver:
> > #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 8
> > #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>
> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
>
> >>
> >>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES 1
> >>> +
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Hard code here, we can not get memory size from MADT (but FDT does),
> >>> + * Actually no need to do that, because this size can be inferred
> >>> + * from GIC spec.
> >>> + */
> >>> +#define ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE (SZ_64K)
> >>
> >> I don't know which version of the spec you're looking at, but my version
> >> of the GICv2 spec has a 4kB distributor. Also, it would be good to make
> >> obvious which GIC version this define is about.
> > OK
> >
> >>
> >>> +#define ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE (SZ_8K)
> >>> +
> >>> +void acpi_gic_init(void);
> >>> +int gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table);
> >>> +#else
> >>> +static inline void acpi_gic_init(void) { }
> >>> +#endif
> >>> +
> >>> +#endif /* ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_ */
> >>>
> >>
> >> In the end, why do we need a separate file for this? I cannot see
> >> anything that prevents it from being merged with arm-gic.h.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> M.
> >>
> > Having only GICv2, it would work. Considering we would do the same for
> > GICv3 (arm-gic-v3.h) there will be register name conflicts for both
> > headers inclusion:
> >
> > [...]
> > #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
> > #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h>
> > [...]
> > err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
> > if (err)
> > err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> > if (err)
> > pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> > [...]
> > So instead of changing register names prefix, I choose new header will
> > be less painfully.
>
> Yes, and this is exactly why I pushed back on that last time. I'll
> continue saying that interrupt controllers should be self-probing, with
> ACPI as they are with DT.
We are in a completely different situation with ACPI compared to DT. In
ACPI there is currently exactly one interrupt controller that is
allowed (GICv2). In the near future there will be a second one (GICv3).
There is zero need to have a infrastructure to abstract a pluggable
interface for registering interrupt controllers.
With DT we've got a tonne of controllers that we need to support. The
pluggable infrastructure was created because we needed it for
maintenance.
All we're really talking about here is a table of registered irq
controllers vs. a few lines of if/else if/else initialization code. The
moment it gets unwieldy, we will refactor it. Until then, the if/else
block is better code.
As for putting the ACPI hook into irqchip_init(), I don't doing so buys
us anything. Common code is good when it is common, but in this case
there is no other platform is going to use this ACPI irq initialization.
Not x86, not ia64. It is ARM64 specific code and moving it out from
arm64 doesn't make sense.
I'm not going to grump and complain if Hanjun decides to move it into
irqchip_init() anyway, but, I don't think this is an issue that should
block the patch series.
g.
>
> Even with the restrictions of ACPI and SBSA, we end-up with at least 2
> main families of interrupt controllers (GICv2 and GICv3), both with a
> number of "interesting" variations (GICv2m and GICv4, to only mention
> those I'm directly involved with).
>
> I can safely predict that the above will become a tangled mess within 18
> months, and the idea of littering the arch code with a bunch of
> hardcoded "if (blah())" doesn't fill me with joy and confidence.
>
> In summary: we have the infrastructure already, just use it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-02 13:02 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-02 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-11 11:48 ` Grant Likely
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-02 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomasz Nowicki
Cc: Marc Zyngier, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:48:37PM +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
> >> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
> >> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
> >> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
> >>
> >> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
> >
> > I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
> > good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
> > virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>
> yes, it is worth mentioning!
It's also worth mentioning if there are any plans to fix this ;).
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-02 13:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 16:34 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-11 11:48 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 12:01 ` Marc Zyngier
2 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-11 11:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tomasz Nowicki, Marc Zyngier, Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown,
Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:48:37 +0200, Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
> >> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
> >> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
> >> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
> >>
> >> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
> >
> > I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
> > good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
> > virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>
> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
> >> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
> >> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
> >> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
> >> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
> >> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
> >> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
> >>
> >> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
> >> -
> >> #else
> >>
> >> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> >> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> >> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
> >> #include <linux/smp.h>
> >> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
> >>
> >> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> >> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> >> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> >> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
> >> }
> >>
> >> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
> >> + acpi_status status;
> >> + acpi_size tbl_size;
> >> + int err;
> >> +
> >> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
> >> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> >> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
> >> +
> >> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> >> + if (err)
> >> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> >
> > What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
> > like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
> > sound like a stuck record?
>
> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
> [...]
> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
> if (err)
> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
> if (err)
> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
> [...]
> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>
> >
> >> +
> >> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
> >> *
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> >> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
> >> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> >> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
> >> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> >> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> >> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
> >>
> >> unsigned long irq_err_count;
> >>
> >> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
> >> void __init init_IRQ(void)
> >> {
> >> irqchip_init();
> >> +
> >> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
> >> + acpi_gic_init();
> >> +
> >
> > Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
> > spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>
> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
> beginning.
It doesn't have to be that way, but given that ARM64 is the only
platform in the foreseeable future that will use ACPI irq setup, it
doesn't make sense to put it in there.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-11 11:48 ` Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-11 12:01 ` Marc Zyngier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Marc Zyngier @ 2014-09-11 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann,
Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau,
Randy Dunlap, Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel,
linux-kernel, linaro-acpi
Hi Grant,
On 11/09/14 12:48, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:48:37 +0200, Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>>
>>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>>
>> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 2 -
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 23 +++++++
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 ++
>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++++++++
>>>> 5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>>> extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>>> #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>>
>>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>> -
>>>> #else
>>>>
>>>> static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>> #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>>> #include <linux/smp.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>>> pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>>> + acpi_status status;
>>>> + acpi_size tbl_size;
>>>> + int err;
>>>> +
>>>> + status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>>> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>> + const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>>> +
>>>> + pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>
>>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>>> sound like a stuck record?
>>
>> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
>> [...]
>> err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>> if (err)
>> pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>> [...]
>> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>>> *
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>>> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>> #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>>> #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>
>>>> unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>> void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>> {
>>>> irqchip_init();
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>> + acpi_gic_init();
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>
>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>> beginning.
>
> It doesn't have to be that way, but given that ARM64 is the only
> platform in the foreseeable future that will use ACPI irq setup, it
> doesn't make sense to put it in there.
I have a different perspective. There is no reason to pollute the arch
code with something that is essentially platform specific.
irqchip_init is the logical place to probe for an irqchip, and I fail to
see the point of sticking this code somewhere else. Why would ACPI be so
special that it requires additional hooks in the arch code?
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-01 17:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-09-02 8:28 ` [Linaro-acpi] " Alexander Spyridakis
2014-09-02 11:48 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-09 6:14 ` Jon Masters
2 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Zyngier, Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/01/2014 01:35 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
>>
>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>
>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>
> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
Wei Huang within Red Hat is currently beginning the process of bringing
up KVM support under ACPI on real hardware. This will be fixed asap.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 17:35 ` Marc Zyngier
@ 2014-09-03 18:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-04 10:10 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-09 6:35 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2014-09-03 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore,
linux-acpi, Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki, Mark Brown,
Bjorn Helgaas, Graeme Gregory, Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel,
Sudeep Holla
On Monday 01 September 2014 22:57:51 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
> + if (count < 0) {
> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
> + return -EFAULT;
> + } else if (!count) {
> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
> +
> + if (!madt->address)
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
> + }
After I read through ACPI-5.1 section 5.2.12.14, I wonder if this is the
best way to treat a missing ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT table.
Do we expect to see those in practice? It seems like using the x86 local
APIC address as a fallback for the GIC address is not something we
should do unless we absolutely have to support a system that doesn't
have the GIC table.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 18:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2014-09-04 10:10 ` Tomasz Nowicki
2014-09-04 10:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-09 6:35 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Nowicki @ 2014-09-04 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore,
linux-acpi, Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas,
Graeme Gregory, Randy Dunlap, linux-kernel, Sudeep Holla
On 03.09.2014 20:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 01 September 2014 22:57:51 Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>> + if (count < 0) {
>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + } else if (!count) {
>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>> +
>> + if (!madt->address)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>> + }
>
> After I read through ACPI-5.1 section 5.2.12.14, I wonder if this is the
> best way to treat a missing ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT table.
>
> Do we expect to see those in practice? It seems like using the x86 local
> APIC address as a fallback for the GIC address is not something we
> should do unless we absolutely have to support a system that doesn't
> have the GIC table.
No, we do not expect and hopefully there will be no such :)
But, we are trying to be as much as possible inline with 5.1 spec,
5.2.12.14 says:
[...]
If provided here (CPU physical base address), the "Local Interrupt
Controller Address" field in the MADT must be ignored by the OSPM.
[...]
Regards,
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-04 10:10 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-04 10:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-04 10:39 ` Tomasz Nowicki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2014-09-04 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki, Mark Rutland, linaro-acpi, Catalin Marinas,
Will Deacon, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi,
Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi, Grant Likely,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier,
Liviu Dudau, Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, Graeme Gregory,
Randy Dunlap, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel, Hanjun Guo,
Sudeep Holla, Olof Johansson
On Thursday 04 September 2014 12:10:28 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> On 03.09.2014 20:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 01 September 2014 22:57:51 Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
> >> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
> >> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
> >> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
> >> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
> >> + if (count < 0) {
> >> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
> >> + return -EFAULT;
> >> + } else if (!count) {
> >> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
> >> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
> >> +
> >> + if (!madt->address)
> >> + return -EFAULT;
> >> +
> >> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
> >> + }
> >
> > After I read through ACPI-5.1 section 5.2.12.14, I wonder if this is the
> > best way to treat a missing ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT table.
> >
> > Do we expect to see those in practice? It seems like using the x86 local
> > APIC address as a fallback for the GIC address is not something we
> > should do unless we absolutely have to support a system that doesn't
> > have the GIC table.
>
> No, we do not expect and hopefully there will be no such
>
> But, we are trying to be as much as possible inline with 5.1 spec,
> 5.2.12.14 says:
> [...]
> If provided here (CPU physical base address), the "Local Interrupt
> Controller Address" field in the MADT must be ignored by the OSPM.
> [...]
>
Yes, that's what I saw. So ignoring it all the time is fine, right?
Presumably the madt->address field is only referenced here because
some pre-5.1 implementations used to do that.
Arnd
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-04 10:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2014-09-04 10:39 ` Tomasz Nowicki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Tomasz Nowicki @ 2014-09-04 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Mark Rutland, linaro-acpi, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon,
Lv Zheng, Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano,
Robert Moore, linux-acpi, Grant Likely, Charles.Garcia-Tobin,
Robert Richter, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Liviu Dudau,
Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, Graeme Gregory, Randy Dunlap,
Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel, Hanjun Guo, Sudeep Holla,
Olof Johansson
On 04.09.2014 12:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 04 September 2014 12:10:28 Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>> On 03.09.2014 20:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Monday 01 September 2014 22:57:51 Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>>> + if (count < 0) {
>>>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> + } else if (!count) {
>>>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!madt->address)
>>>> + return -EFAULT;
>>>> +
>>>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> After I read through ACPI-5.1 section 5.2.12.14, I wonder if this is the
>>> best way to treat a missing ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT table.
>>>
>>> Do we expect to see those in practice? It seems like using the x86 local
>>> APIC address as a fallback for the GIC address is not something we
>>> should do unless we absolutely have to support a system that doesn't
>>> have the GIC table.
>>
>> No, we do not expect and hopefully there will be no such
>>
>> But, we are trying to be as much as possible inline with 5.1 spec,
>> 5.2.12.14 says:
>> [...]
>> If provided here (CPU physical base address), the "Local Interrupt
>> Controller Address" field in the MADT must be ignored by the OSPM.
>> [...]
>>
>
> Yes, that's what I saw. So ignoring it all the time is fine, right?
> Presumably the madt->address field is only referenced here because
> some pre-5.1 implementations used to do that.
So this is very vague statement. On the one hand it would make sense to
take madt->address if we have no GICC entries. On the other hand we do
not support non-banked GIC cpu registers. So all of then need to have
the same cpu_base_address. What if one has null address? Should the rest
take madt->address? I think you are right, I will remove madt->address
fallback and simplify the code.
Thanks,
Tomasz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
2014-09-03 18:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-04 10:10 ` Tomasz Nowicki
@ 2014-09-09 6:35 ` Jon Masters
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-09 6:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, linux-arm-kernel
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, Grant Likely, linaro-acpi, Liviu Dudau, Lv Zheng,
Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore,
linux-acpi, Charles.Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Marc Zyngier, Will Deacon, Tomasz Nowicki, Mark Brown,
Bjorn Helgaas, Graeme Gregory, Randy Dunlap, linux-acpi,
linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/03/2014 02:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 01 September 2014 22:57:51 Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> + /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>> + count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>> + gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>> + ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>> + ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>> + if (count < 0) {
>> + pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> + } else if (!count) {
>> + /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>> + struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>> +
>> + if (!madt->address)
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> + cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>> + }
>
> After I read through ACPI-5.1 section 5.2.12.14, I wonder if this is the
> best way to treat a missing ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT table.
>
> Do we expect to see those in practice? It seems like using the x86 local
> APIC address as a fallback for the GIC address is not something we
> should do unless we absolutely have to support a system that doesn't
> have the GIC table.
All GICv2 based ACPI systems should define GICCs for the CPU interfaces.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 14/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse GTDT to initialize arch timer
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 15/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI is enabled on ARM64 Hanjun Guo
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
Using the information presented by GTDT to initialize the arch
timer (not memory-mapped).
Originally-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/time.c | 7 ++
drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
include/linux/clocksource.h | 6 ++
3 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c
index 1a7125c..42f9195 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/time.c
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
#include <linux/delay.h>
#include <linux/clocksource.h>
#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h>
@@ -72,6 +73,12 @@ void __init time_init(void)
tick_setup_hrtimer_broadcast();
+ /*
+ * Since ACPI or FDT will only one be available in the system,
+ * we can use acpi_generic_timer_init() here safely
+ */
+ acpi_generic_timer_init();
+
arch_timer_rate = arch_timer_get_rate();
if (!arch_timer_rate)
panic("Unable to initialise architected timer.\n");
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
index 5163ec1..397783f 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
#include <linux/io.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/sched_clock.h>
+#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <asm/arch_timer.h>
#include <asm/virt.h>
@@ -338,8 +339,12 @@ arch_timer_detect_rate(void __iomem *cntbase, struct device_node *np)
if (arch_timer_rate)
return;
- /* Try to determine the frequency from the device tree or CNTFRQ */
- if (of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-frequency", &arch_timer_rate)) {
+ /*
+ * Try to determine the frequency from the device tree or CNTFRQ,
+ * if ACPI is enabled, get the frequency from CNTFRQ ONLY.
+ */
+ if (!acpi_disabled ||
+ of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-frequency", &arch_timer_rate)) {
if (cntbase)
arch_timer_rate = readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
else
@@ -635,20 +640,8 @@ static void __init arch_timer_common_init(void)
arch_timer_arch_init();
}
-static void __init arch_timer_init(struct device_node *np)
+static void __init arch_timer_init(void)
{
- int i;
-
- if (arch_timers_present & ARCH_CP15_TIMER) {
- pr_warn("arch_timer: multiple nodes in dt, skipping\n");
- return;
- }
-
- arch_timers_present |= ARCH_CP15_TIMER;
- for (i = PHYS_SECURE_PPI; i < MAX_TIMER_PPI; i++)
- arch_timer_ppi[i] = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, i);
- arch_timer_detect_rate(NULL, np);
-
/*
* If HYP mode is available, we know that the physical timer
* has been configured to be accessible from PL1. Use it, so
@@ -667,13 +660,31 @@ static void __init arch_timer_init(struct device_node *np)
}
}
- arch_timer_c3stop = !of_property_read_bool(np, "always-on");
-
arch_timer_register();
arch_timer_common_init();
}
-CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(armv7_arch_timer, "arm,armv7-timer", arch_timer_init);
-CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(armv8_arch_timer, "arm,armv8-timer", arch_timer_init);
+
+static void __init arch_timer_of_init(struct device_node *np)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ if (arch_timers_present & ARCH_CP15_TIMER) {
+ pr_warn("arch_timer: multiple nodes in dt, skipping\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ arch_timers_present |= ARCH_CP15_TIMER;
+ for (i = PHYS_SECURE_PPI; i < MAX_TIMER_PPI; i++)
+ arch_timer_ppi[i] = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, i);
+
+ arch_timer_detect_rate(NULL, np);
+
+ arch_timer_c3stop = !of_property_read_bool(np, "always-on");
+
+ arch_timer_init();
+}
+CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(armv7_arch_timer, "arm,armv7-timer", arch_timer_of_init);
+CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(armv8_arch_timer, "arm,armv8-timer", arch_timer_of_init);
static void __init arch_timer_mem_init(struct device_node *np)
{
@@ -740,3 +751,71 @@ static void __init arch_timer_mem_init(struct device_node *np)
}
CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(armv7_arch_timer_mem, "arm,armv7-timer-mem",
arch_timer_mem_init);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+static int __init
+map_generic_timer_interrupt(u32 interrupt, u32 flags)
+{
+ int trigger, polarity;
+
+ if (!interrupt)
+ return 0;
+
+ trigger = (flags & ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) ? ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE
+ : ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE;
+
+ polarity = (flags & ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY) ? ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW
+ : ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH;
+
+ return acpi_register_gsi(NULL, interrupt, trigger, polarity);
+}
+
+/* Initialize per-processor generic timer */
+static int __init arch_timer_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
+{
+ struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt;
+
+ if (arch_timers_present & ARCH_CP15_TIMER) {
+ pr_warn("arch_timer: already initialized, skipping\n");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ gtdt = container_of(table, struct acpi_table_gtdt, header);
+
+ arch_timers_present |= ARCH_CP15_TIMER;
+
+ arch_timer_ppi[PHYS_SECURE_PPI] =
+ map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->secure_el1_interrupt,
+ gtdt->secure_el1_flags);
+
+ arch_timer_ppi[PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI] =
+ map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->non_secure_el1_interrupt,
+ gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags);
+
+ arch_timer_ppi[VIRT_PPI] =
+ map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->virtual_timer_interrupt,
+ gtdt->virtual_timer_flags);
+
+ arch_timer_ppi[HYP_PPI] =
+ map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->non_secure_el2_interrupt,
+ gtdt->non_secure_el2_flags);
+
+ /* Get the frequency from CNTFRQ */
+ arch_timer_detect_rate(NULL, NULL);
+
+ /* Always-on capability */
+ arch_timer_c3stop = !(gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags & ACPI_GTDT_ALWAYS_ON);
+
+ arch_timer_init();
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/* Initialize all the generic timers presented in GTDT */
+void __init acpi_generic_timer_init(void)
+{
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return;
+
+ acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_GTDT, arch_timer_acpi_init);
+}
+#endif
diff --git a/include/linux/clocksource.h b/include/linux/clocksource.h
index 653f0e2..5839f98 100644
--- a/include/linux/clocksource.h
+++ b/include/linux/clocksource.h
@@ -346,4 +346,10 @@ extern void clocksource_of_init(void);
static inline void clocksource_of_init(void) {}
#endif
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+void acpi_generic_timer_init(void);
+#else
+static inline void acpi_generic_timer_init(void) {}
+#endif
+
#endif /* _LINUX_CLOCKSOURCE_H */
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 15/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI is enabled on ARM64
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 14/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse GTDT to initialize arch timer Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 16/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Enable ARM64 in Kconfig Hanjun Guo
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Hanjun Guo
From: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
ACPI reduced hardware mode is disabled by default, but ARM64
can only run properly in ACPI hardware reduced mode, so select
ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI is enabled on ARM64.
Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index fd4e81a..065438c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
config ARM64
def_bool y
+ select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI
select ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC64_DEC_IF_POSITIVE
select ARCH_HAS_SG_CHAIN
select ARCH_HAS_TICK_BROADCAST if GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* [PATCH v3 16/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Enable ARM64 in Kconfig
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 15/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI is enabled on ARM64 Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-11 15:18 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 17/17] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Hanjun Guo
2014-09-11 13:29 ` [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Grant Likely
17 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone, Hanjun Guo
From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Add Kconfigs to build ACPI on ARM64, and make ACPI available on ARM64.
acpi_idle driver is x86/IA64 dependent now, so make CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
depend on X86 || IA64, and implement it on ARM64 in the future.
Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 ++
drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index 065438c..8dabaeb 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -422,6 +422,8 @@ source "drivers/Kconfig"
source "drivers/firmware/Kconfig"
+source "drivers/acpi/Kconfig"
+
source "fs/Kconfig"
source "arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig"
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
index d0f3265..f935d2e 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
@@ -5,8 +5,7 @@
menuconfig ACPI
bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support"
depends on !IA64_HP_SIM
- depends on IA64 || X86
- depends on PCI
+ depends on ((IA64 || X86) && PCI) || (ARM64 && EXPERT)
select PNP
default y
help
@@ -163,6 +162,7 @@ config ACPI_PROCESSOR
tristate "Processor"
select THERMAL
select CPU_IDLE
+ depends on X86 || IA64
default y
help
This driver installs ACPI as the idle handler for Linux and uses
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ config ACPI_DEBUG
config ACPI_PCI_SLOT
bool "PCI slot detection driver"
- depends on SYSFS
+ depends on SYSFS && PCI
default n
help
This driver creates entries in /sys/bus/pci/slots/ for all PCI
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 16/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Enable ARM64 in Kconfig
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 16/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Enable ARM64 in Kconfig Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-11 15:18 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi @ 2014-09-11 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo
Cc: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
grant.likely, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Will Deacon, Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas,
Daniel Lezcano, Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter,
Lv Zheng, Robert Moore, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Al Stone
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:54PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>
> Add Kconfigs to build ACPI on ARM64, and make ACPI available on ARM64.
>
> acpi_idle driver is x86/IA64 dependent now, so make CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR
> depend on X86 || IA64, and implement it on ARM64 in the future.
So are S states. Maybe I am being pedantic, but why can't you do
the same thing for drivers/acpi/sleep.c ? Is it really that complicated to add
a config option and avoid compiling it (that file supports a part
of the ACPI specs that is completely undefined for ARM64), and with that
removing the need for useless hooks on ARM64 ?
Why do we have to compile that code at all on ARM64 ?
Thanks,
Lorenzo
> Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 ++
> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 6 +++---
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index 065438c..8dabaeb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -422,6 +422,8 @@ source "drivers/Kconfig"
>
> source "drivers/firmware/Kconfig"
>
> +source "drivers/acpi/Kconfig"
> +
> source "fs/Kconfig"
>
> source "arch/arm64/kvm/Kconfig"
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> index d0f3265..f935d2e 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> @@ -5,8 +5,7 @@
> menuconfig ACPI
> bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support"
> depends on !IA64_HP_SIM
> - depends on IA64 || X86
> - depends on PCI
> + depends on ((IA64 || X86) && PCI) || (ARM64 && EXPERT)
> select PNP
> default y
> help
> @@ -163,6 +162,7 @@ config ACPI_PROCESSOR
> tristate "Processor"
> select THERMAL
> select CPU_IDLE
> + depends on X86 || IA64
> default y
> help
> This driver installs ACPI as the idle handler for Linux and uses
> @@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ config ACPI_DEBUG
>
> config ACPI_PCI_SLOT
> bool "PCI slot detection driver"
> - depends on SYSFS
> + depends on SYSFS && PCI
> default n
> help
> This driver creates entries in /sys/bus/pci/slots/ for all PCI
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3 17/17] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 16/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Enable ARM64 in Kconfig Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-01 14:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-09-11 13:29 ` [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Grant Likely
17 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Hanjun Guo @ 2014-09-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Grant Likely
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Add documentation for the guidelines of how to use ACPI
on ARM64.
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt | 218 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 218 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..704a9e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+ACPI on ARMv8 Servers
+---------------------
+
+ACPI can be used for ARMv8 general purpose servers designed to follow
+the SBSA specification (currently available to people with an ARM login at
+http://silver.arm.com).
+
+The kernel will implement minimum ACPI version is 5.1 + errata as released by
+the UEFI Forum, which is available at <http://www.uefi.org/acpi/specs>.
+
+If the machine does not meet the requirements of the SBSA, or cannot be
+described in the required ACPI specifications then it is likely that Device Tree
+(DT) is more suitable for the hardware.
+
+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 (including kernel bootargs).
+
+Regardless of whether DT or ACPI is used, the kernel must always be capable
+of booting with either scheme (in kernels with both schemes enabled at compile
+time).
+
+When booting using ACPI tables the /chosen node in DT will still be parsed
+to extract the kernel command line and initrd path. No other section of
+the DT will be used.
+
+Booting using ACPI tables
+-------------------------
+
+Currently, the only defined method to pass ACPI tables to the kernel on ARMv8
+is via the UEFI system configuration table.
+
+The UEFI implementation MUST set the ACPI_20_TABLE_GUID to point to the
+RSDP table (the table with the ACPI signature "RSD PTR ").
+
+The pointer to the RSDP table will be retrieved from EFI by the ACPI core.
+
+Processing of ACPI tables may be disabled by passing acpi=off on the kernel
+command line.
+
+DO use an XSDT; RSDTs are deprecated and should not be used on arm64. They
+only allow for 32-bit addresses.
+
+DO NOT use the 32-bit address fields in the FADT; they are deprecated. The
+64-bit alternatives MUST be used.
+
+The minimum set of tables MUST include RSDP, XSDT, FACS, FADT, DSDT, MADT
+and GTDT. If PCI is used the MCFG table MUST also be present.
+
+ACPI Detection
+--------------
+
+Drivers should determine their probe() type by checking for ACPI_HANDLE,
+or .of_node, or other information in the device structure. This is
+detailed further in the "Driver Recommendations" section.
+
+In non-driver code If the presence of ACPI needs to be detected at runtime,
+then check the value of acpi_disabled. If CONFIG_ACPI is not set,
+acpi_disabled will always be 1.
+
+Device Enumeration
+------------------
+
+Device descriptions in ACPI should use standard recognized ACPI interfaces.
+These are far simpler than the information provided via Device Tree. Drivers
+should take into account this simplicity and work with sensible defaults.
+
+On no account should a Device Tree attempt to be replicated in ASL using such
+constructs as Name(KEY0, "Value1") type constructs. Additional driver specific
+data should be represented with the appropriate _DSD (ACPI Section 6.2.5)
+structure. _DSM (ACPI Section 9.14.1) should only be used if _DSD cannot
+represent the data required.
+
+This data should be rare and not OS specific. For x86 ACPI has taken to
+identifying itself as Windows because it was found that only one path was
+routinely tested. For ARMv8 it would be preferable to have only one well
+tested path.
+
+_DSD covers more than the generic server case and care should be taken not to
+replicate highly specific embedded behaviour from DT into generic servers.
+
+Common _DSD bindings should be submitted to ASWG to be included in the
+document :-
+
+http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-implementation-guide-toplevel.htm
+
+If these bindings are mirrored from DT care should be taken to ensure they are
+reviewed as DT bindings before submission to limit divergance in bindings.
+
+Programmable Power Control Resources
+------------------------------------
+
+Programmable power control resources include such resources as voltage/current
+providers (regulators) and clock sources.
+
+For power control of these resources they should be represented with Power
+Resource Objects (ACPI Section 7.1). The ACPI core will then handle correctly
+enabling/disabling of resources as they are needed.
+
+The ACPI 5.1 specification does not contain any standard binding for these
+objects to enable programmable levels or rates so this should be avoided if
+possible and the resources set to appropriate levels by the firmware. If this is
+not possible then any manipulation should be abstracted in ASL.
+
+Each device in ACPI has D-states and these can be controlled through
+the optional methods _PS0..._PS3 where _PS0 is full on and _PS3 is full off.
+
+If either _PS0 or _PS3 is implemented, then the other method must also be
+implemented.
+
+If a device requires usage or setup of a power resource when on, the ASL
+should organize that it is allocated/enabled using the _PS0 method.
+
+Resources allocated/enabled in the _PS0 method should be disabled/de-allocated
+in the _PS3 method.
+
+Such code in _PS? methods will of course be very platform specific but
+should allow the driver to operate the device without special non-standard
+values being read from ASL. Further, abstracting the use of these resources
+allows hardware revisions without requiring updates to the kernel.
+
+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 initialize these clocks to fixed working
+values before the kernel is executed.
+
+Driver Recommendations
+----------------------
+
+DO NOT remove any FDT handling when adding ACPI support for a driver. Different
+systems may use the same device.
+
+DO try and keep complex sections of ACPI and DT functionality separate. This
+may mean a patch to break out some complex DT to another function before
+the patch to add ACPI. This may happen in other functions but is most likely
+in probe function. This gives a clearer flow of data for reviewing driver
+source.
+
+probe() :-
+
+static int device_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ /* DT specific functionality */
+ ...
+}
+
+static int device_probe_acpi(struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ /* ACPI specific functionality */
+ ...
+}
+
+static int device_probe(stuct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ ...
+ struct device_node node = pdev->dev.of_node;
+ ...
+
+ if (node)
+ ret = device_probe_dt(pdev);
+ else if (ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev))
+ ret = device_probe_acpi(pdev);
+ else
+ /* other initialization */
+ ...
+ /* Continue with any generic probe operations */
+ ...
+}
+
+DO keep the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE entries together in the driver to make it clear
+the different names the driver is probed for, both from DT and from ACPI.
+
+module device tables :-
+
+static struct of_device_id virtio_mmio_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "virtio,mmio", },
+ { }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, virtio_mmio_match);
+
+static const struct acpi_device_id virtio_mmio_acpi_match[] = {
+ { "LNRO0005", },
+ { }
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, virtio_mmio_acpi_match);
+
+ASWG
+----
+
+The following areas are not yet well defined for ARM in the current ACPI
+specification and are expected to be worked through in the UEFI ACPI
+Specification Working Group (ASWG) <http://www.uefi.org/workinggroups>.
+Participation in this group is open to all UEFI members.
+
+ - ACPI based CPU topology
+ - ACPI based Power management
+ - CPU idle control based on PSCI
+ - CPU performance control (CPPC)
+ - ACPI based SMMU
+ - ITS support for GIC in MADT
+
+No code shall be accepted into the kernel unless it complies with the released
+standards from UEFI ASWG. If there are features missing from ACPI to make it
+function on a platform, ECRs should be submitted to ASWG and go through the
+approval process.
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-01 14:57 [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Hanjun Guo
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-01 14:57 ` [PATCH v3 17/17] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Hanjun Guo
@ 2014-09-11 13:29 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 13:49 ` Will Deacon
` (3 more replies)
17 siblings, 4 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-11 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson
Cc: Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi, Hanjun Guo
On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
> download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
> this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
> code to run ACPI on ARM64.
>
> ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
> method which are essential for ARM platforms:
> 1) MADT table updates.
> 2) FADT updates for PSCI
> 3) GTDT
>
> This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
> and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
> patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
> in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
>
> We first introduce acpi.c and its related head file which are needed
> by ACPI core, and then get RSDP to extract all the ACPI boot-time tables.
> When all the boot-time tables (FADT, MADT, GTDT) are ready, then
> parse them to init the sytem when booted. Specifically,
> a) we use FADT to init PSCI and use PSCI to boot SMP;
> b) Use MADT for GIC init and SMP init;
> c) GTDT for arch timer init.
>
> This patch set is based on 3.17-rc2 and was tested by Graeme on Juno
> and FVP base model boot with ACPI only OK, if you want to test them,
> you can pull from acpi-5.1-v3 branch in leg/acpi repo:
> git://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git
>
> Updates since v2:
> - Refactor the code to make SMP/PSCI init with less sperated init
> path by Tomasz
> - make ACPI depend on EXPERT
> - Address lots of comments from Catalin, Sudeep, Geoff
> - Add Juno device ACPI driver patches for review
>
> Updates since v1:
> - Set ACPI default off on ARM64 suggested by Olof;
> - Rebase the patch set on top of linux-next branch/linux-pm tree which
> includes the ACPICA for full ACPI 5.1 support.
> - Update the document as suggested;
> - Adress lots of comments from Mark, Sudeep, Randy, Naresh, Olof, Geoff
> and more...
>
> [1]: http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_5_1release.pdf
I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
entire series again.
Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
g.
>
> Al Stone (3):
> ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables
> ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce early_param for "acpi"
> ARM64 / ACPI: Select ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY if ACPI is enabled on
> ARM64
>
> Ashwin Chaugule (1):
> ACPI / table: Add new function to get table entries
>
> Graeme Gregory (4):
> ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function
> ARM64 / ACPI: If we chose to boot from acpi then disable FDT
> ARM64 / ACPI: Enable ARM64 in Kconfig
> Documentation: ACPI for ARM64
>
> Hanjun Guo (8):
> ARM64: Move the init of cpu_logical_map(0) before
> unflatten_device_tree()
> ARM64 / ACPI: Make PCI optional for ACPI on ARM64
> ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI flags for PSCI init
> ACPI / table: Print GIC information when MADT is parsed
> ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
> ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU hardware ID via GICC
> ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_GIC and register device's gsi
> ARM64 / ACPI: Parse GTDT to initialize arch timer
>
> Tomasz Nowicki (1):
> ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support
>
> Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt | 218 +++++++++++++++++++++
> Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +-
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h | 18 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 108 ++++++++++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpu_ops.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h | 11 ++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/psci.h | 3 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/smp.h | 5 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 359 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_ops.c | 4 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 5 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 78 +++++---
> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 23 ++-
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/time.c | 7 +
> drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 6 +-
> drivers/acpi/Makefile | 2 +-
> drivers/acpi/bus.c | 3 +
> drivers/acpi/internal.h | 5 +
> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 37 ++++
> drivers/acpi/tables.c | 113 +++++++++--
> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 117 +++++++++--
> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 114 +++++++++++
> include/linux/acpi.h | 5 +
> include/linux/clocksource.h | 6 +
> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h | 33 ++++
> include/linux/pci.h | 37 +++-
> 29 files changed, 1237 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/pci.h
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 13:29 ` [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-11 13:49 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-12 21:38 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-15 4:21 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 14:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Will Deacon @ 2014-09-11 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
Hi Grant,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> > ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
> > download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
> > this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
> > code to run ACPI on ARM64.
> >
> > ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
> > method which are essential for ARM platforms:
> > 1) MADT table updates.
> > 2) FADT updates for PSCI
> > 3) GTDT
> >
> > This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
> > and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
> > patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
> > in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
[...]
> I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
> comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
> arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
> manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
> the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
> entire series again.
>
> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>
> I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
> linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
> a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
Apart from build testing, what does this wider exposure achieve? Is there a
platform available that would be able to boot Linux (to a meaingful state)
with this patch series alone?
I'm mindful of merging arch code that I'm unable to test, so I'd really
rather it was merged along with the code (and a devicetree) for a platform
that can use it.
Will
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 13:49 ` Will Deacon
@ 2014-09-12 21:38 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-12 21:43 ` Jon Masters
2014-09-15 4:21 ` Grant Likely
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-12 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon, Grant Likely
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/11/2014 09:49 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
>>> download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
>>> this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
>>> code to run ACPI on ARM64.
>>>
>>> ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
>>> method which are essential for ARM platforms:
>>> 1) MADT table updates.
>>> 2) FADT updates for PSCI
>>> 3) GTDT
>>>
>>> This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
>>> and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
>>> patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
>>> in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
>
> [...]
>
>> I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
>> comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
>> arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
>> manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
>> the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
>> entire series again.
>>
>> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
>> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
>> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
>> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
>> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
>> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>>
>> I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
>> linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
>> a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
>
> Apart from build testing, what does this wider exposure achieve? Is there a
> platform available that would be able to boot Linux (to a meaingful state)
> with this patch series alone?
With this patch series, plus a couple of minor device patches (to add
the necessary OF->ACPI probe conversion, which is needed in any case) it
is possible to boot both an AMD Seattle and an APM Mustang system[0] to
a prompt. Both sets of hardware should be represented at Connect next
week. In addition, AMD will be following up with an example (similar to
the Juno one) for booting Seattle with the current patchset.
Jon.
[0] A replacement UEFI firmware is available for APM Mustang that
contains updated ACPI tables known to work with this patch series.
Mustang systems will transition over to this firmware over time. In the
case of Seattle, systems ship today with the correct UEFI/ACPI combo.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-12 21:38 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-12 21:43 ` Jon Masters
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Jon Masters @ 2014-09-12 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon, Grant Likely
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel
On 09/12/2014 05:38 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 09/11/2014 09:49 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Grant,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
>>>> download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
>>>> this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
>>>> code to run ACPI on ARM64.
>>>>
>>>> ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
>>>> method which are essential for ARM platforms:
>>>> 1) MADT table updates.
>>>> 2) FADT updates for PSCI
>>>> 3) GTDT
>>>>
>>>> This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
>>>> and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
>>>> patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
>>>> in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
>>> comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
>>> arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
>>> manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
>>> the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
>>> entire series again.
>>>
>>> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
>>> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
>>> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
>>> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
>>> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
>>> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>>>
>>> I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
>>> linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
>>> a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
>>
>> Apart from build testing, what does this wider exposure achieve? Is there a
>> platform available that would be able to boot Linux (to a meaingful state)
>> with this patch series alone?
>
> With this patch series, plus a couple of minor device patches (to add
> the necessary OF->ACPI probe conversion, which is needed in any case) it
> is possible to boot both an AMD Seattle and an APM Mustang system[0] to
> a prompt. Both sets of hardware should be represented at Connect next
> week. In addition, AMD will be following up with an example (similar to
> the Juno one) for booting Seattle with the current patchset.
If anyone would like to set aside some time early next week (ahead of
the Friday and possible other sessions discussing ACPI status) to go
over specifics of certain hardware such as Seattle, I am happy to assist
setting that up. Suravee from AMD will be there, and we will both have
Seattle hardware able to run these patches with us.
Jon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 13:49 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-12 21:38 ` Jon Masters
@ 2014-09-15 4:21 ` Grant Likely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-15 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Will Deacon
Cc: hanjun.guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:49:22 +0100, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
> > > download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
> > > this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
> > > code to run ACPI on ARM64.
> > >
> > > ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
> > > method which are essential for ARM platforms:
> > > 1) MADT table updates.
> > > 2) FADT updates for PSCI
> > > 3) GTDT
> > >
> > > This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
> > > and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
> > > patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
> > > in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
>
> [...]
>
> > I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
> > comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
> > arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
> > manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
> > the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
> > entire series again.
> >
> > Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> > completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> > a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> > refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> > on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> > against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
> >
> > I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
> > linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
> > a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
>
> Apart from build testing, what does this wider exposure achieve?
It tests that ACPI support does not break existing platform support and
it builds in configurations that we simply haven't tested yet. The LEG
wiki has instructions for running the code on Fvp and Juno. It gets us
confidence that the patches aren't dangerous and that they work outside
of the ACPI developers environment.
Hanjun, what is the state of firmware binaries? I know we're building
them for releases and snapshots, but I don't know if they contain the
required ACPI bits.
> Is there a
> platform available that would be able to boot Linux (to a meaingful state)
> with this patch series alone?
(Hanjun/Graeme, correct me if I'm wrong here) There are two driver
patches that makes Juno and the FVP model usable. One for Ethernet
and one for the UART, but the UART one is going to be dropped in favour
of ARM's SBSA UART patch. It also works on AMD Seatlle with driver patches,
but those ones haven't been published yet.
g.
> I'm mindful of merging arch code that I'm unable to test, so I'd really
> rather it was merged along with the code (and a devicetree) for a platform
> that can use it.
>
> Will
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 13:29 ` [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Grant Likely
2014-09-11 13:49 ` Will Deacon
@ 2014-09-11 14:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-09-11 14:04 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-11 16:05 ` Olof Johansson
3 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2014-09-11 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Thursday, September 11, 2014 02:29:34 PM Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> > ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
> > download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
> > this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
> > code to run ACPI on ARM64.
> >
> > ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
> > method which are essential for ARM platforms:
> > 1) MADT table updates.
> > 2) FADT updates for PSCI
> > 3) GTDT
> >
> > This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
> > and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
> > patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
> > in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
> >
> > We first introduce acpi.c and its related head file which are needed
> > by ACPI core, and then get RSDP to extract all the ACPI boot-time tables.
> > When all the boot-time tables (FADT, MADT, GTDT) are ready, then
> > parse them to init the sytem when booted. Specifically,
> > a) we use FADT to init PSCI and use PSCI to boot SMP;
> > b) Use MADT for GIC init and SMP init;
> > c) GTDT for arch timer init.
> >
> > This patch set is based on 3.17-rc2 and was tested by Graeme on Juno
> > and FVP base model boot with ACPI only OK, if you want to test them,
> > you can pull from acpi-5.1-v3 branch in leg/acpi repo:
> > git://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git
> >
> > Updates since v2:
> > - Refactor the code to make SMP/PSCI init with less sperated init
> > path by Tomasz
> > - make ACPI depend on EXPERT
> > - Address lots of comments from Catalin, Sudeep, Geoff
> > - Add Juno device ACPI driver patches for review
> >
> > Updates since v1:
> > - Set ACPI default off on ARM64 suggested by Olof;
> > - Rebase the patch set on top of linux-next branch/linux-pm tree which
> > includes the ACPICA for full ACPI 5.1 support.
> > - Update the document as suggested;
> > - Adress lots of comments from Mark, Sudeep, Randy, Naresh, Olof, Geoff
> > and more...
> >
> > [1]: http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_5_1release.pdf
>
> I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
> comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
> arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
> manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
> the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
> entire series again.
>
> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>
> I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
> linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
> a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
Having looked at the patches recently, I don't see any major problems in
them from the ACPI core perspective, so to me they are good to go.
Question is who's going to handle them?
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 14:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2014-09-11 14:04 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-11 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, ACPI Devel Mailing List, linux-arm-kernel,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, linaro-acpi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 11, 2014 02:29:34 PM Grant Likely wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
>> > download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
>> > this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
>> > code to run ACPI on ARM64.
>> >
>> > ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
>> > method which are essential for ARM platforms:
>> > 1) MADT table updates.
>> > 2) FADT updates for PSCI
>> > 3) GTDT
>> >
>> > This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
>> > and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
>> > patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
>> > in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
>> >
>> > We first introduce acpi.c and its related head file which are needed
>> > by ACPI core, and then get RSDP to extract all the ACPI boot-time tables.
>> > When all the boot-time tables (FADT, MADT, GTDT) are ready, then
>> > parse them to init the sytem when booted. Specifically,
>> > a) we use FADT to init PSCI and use PSCI to boot SMP;
>> > b) Use MADT for GIC init and SMP init;
>> > c) GTDT for arch timer init.
>> >
>> > This patch set is based on 3.17-rc2 and was tested by Graeme on Juno
>> > and FVP base model boot with ACPI only OK, if you want to test them,
>> > you can pull from acpi-5.1-v3 branch in leg/acpi repo:
>> > git://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git
>> >
>> > Updates since v2:
>> > - Refactor the code to make SMP/PSCI init with less sperated init
>> > path by Tomasz
>> > - make ACPI depend on EXPERT
>> > - Address lots of comments from Catalin, Sudeep, Geoff
>> > - Add Juno device ACPI driver patches for review
>> >
>> > Updates since v1:
>> > - Set ACPI default off on ARM64 suggested by Olof;
>> > - Rebase the patch set on top of linux-next branch/linux-pm tree which
>> > includes the ACPICA for full ACPI 5.1 support.
>> > - Update the document as suggested;
>> > - Adress lots of comments from Mark, Sudeep, Randy, Naresh, Olof, Geoff
>> > and more...
>> >
>> > [1]: http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_5_1release.pdf
>>
>> I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
>> comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
>> arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
>> manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
>> the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
>> entire series again.
>>
>> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
>> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
>> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
>> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
>> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
>> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>>
>> I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
>> linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
>> a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
>
> Having looked at the patches recently, I don't see any major problems in
> them from the ACPI core perspective, so to me they are good to go.
>
> Question is who's going to handle them?
They should absolutely go via Catalin & Will's tree.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 13:29 ` [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Grant Likely
2014-09-11 13:49 ` Will Deacon
2014-09-11 14:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2014-09-11 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-11 15:57 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-09-15 4:31 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-11 16:05 ` Olof Johansson
3 siblings, 2 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-11 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
I have to disagree here. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with refactoring
happening later but I'm not happy with compiling in code with undefined
behaviour on ARM that may actually be executed at run-time.
I'm being told one of the main advantages of ACPI is forward
compatibility: running older kernels on newer hardware (potentially with
newer ACPI version tables). ACPI 5.1 includes partial support for ARM
but the S and C states are not defined yet. We therefore assume that
hardware vendors deploying servers using ACPI would not provide such
yet to be defined information in ACPI 5.1 tables.
What if in a year time we get ACPI 5.2 or 6 (or an errata update)
covering the S and C states for ARM? I would expect hardware vendors
to take advantage and provide such information in ACPI tables. Can we
guarantee that a kernel with the current ACPI patches wouldn't blow up
when it tries to interpret the new tables? If we can't guarantee this,
we rather fix it now. Some suggestions:
a) Make sure code which doesn't have a clear behaviour on ARM is not
compiled in and doesn't even try to interpret such tables on ARM (you
could just go for the latter but I'm not sure how feasible it is)
b) Ensure that the current patches don't support anything other than
ACPI 5.1 (6 or later would not be supported; can we get information
about which errata update do vendor tables cover?)
c) Consider the current ACPI code broken for ARM (rather than feature
incomplete) and strongly recommend vendors not to use it
Point (a) looks the sanest to me. Point (b) kind of defeats one of the
ACPI goals while point (c) would question why we even bother discussing
merging now.
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-11 15:57 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-09-11 16:06 ` Graeme Gregory
2014-09-15 4:31 ` Grant Likely
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2014-09-11 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas, grant.likely
Cc: Sudeep Holla, hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Olof Johansson, graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On 11/09/14 16:37, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
>> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
>> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
>> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
>> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
>> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>
> I have to disagree here. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with refactoring
> happening later but I'm not happy with compiling in code with undefined
> behaviour on ARM that may actually be executed at run-time.
>
> I'm being told one of the main advantages of ACPI is forward
> compatibility: running older kernels on newer hardware (potentially with
> newer ACPI version tables). ACPI 5.1 includes partial support for ARM
> but the S and C states are not defined yet. We therefore assume that
> hardware vendors deploying servers using ACPI would not provide such
> yet to be defined information in ACPI 5.1 tables.
>
> What if in a year time we get ACPI 5.2 or 6 (or an errata update)
> covering the S and C states for ARM? I would expect hardware vendors
> to take advantage and provide such information in ACPI tables. Can we
> guarantee that a kernel with the current ACPI patches wouldn't blow up
> when it tries to interpret the new tables? If we can't guarantee this,
> we rather fix it now. Some suggestions:
>
> a) Make sure code which doesn't have a clear behaviour on ARM is not
> compiled in and doesn't even try to interpret such tables on ARM (you
> could just go for the latter but I'm not sure how feasible it is)
This what we have suggested in past especially for this S-state support.
Currently the core acpi code compiles in sleep support unconditionally.
That doesn't mean we need to do the same on ARM64, we can easily make
sure that's not enabled for ARM64 until we have clarification on how to
support them on ARM in ACPI specification.
I just pointed out at one "out of spec" workaround done for x86
"unconditionally" in the code just to tell that it won't work on ARM.
That shouldn't be misunderstood as demand for refactoring as we have no
clue how S-state would look on ARM to take up any such task.
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 15:57 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2014-09-11 16:06 ` Graeme Gregory
2014-09-11 16:14 ` Sudeep Holla
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Graeme Gregory @ 2014-09-11 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla
Cc: Catalin Marinas, grant.likely, Mark Rutland, linaro-acpi,
Will Deacon, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring, Lorenzo Pieralisi,
Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi, Charles Garcia-Tobin,
Robert Richter, Jason Cooper, Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier,
Liviu Dudau, Mark Brown, Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel,
graeme.gregory, Randy Dunlap, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel,
hanjun.guo, Olof Johansson
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:57:24PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 11/09/14 16:37, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> >>Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> >>completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> >>a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> >>refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> >>on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> >>against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
> >
> >I have to disagree here. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with refactoring
> >happening later but I'm not happy with compiling in code with undefined
> >behaviour on ARM that may actually be executed at run-time.
> >
> >I'm being told one of the main advantages of ACPI is forward
> >compatibility: running older kernels on newer hardware (potentially with
> >newer ACPI version tables). ACPI 5.1 includes partial support for ARM
> >but the S and C states are not defined yet. We therefore assume that
> >hardware vendors deploying servers using ACPI would not provide such
> >yet to be defined information in ACPI 5.1 tables.
> >
> >What if in a year time we get ACPI 5.2 or 6 (or an errata update)
> >covering the S and C states for ARM? I would expect hardware vendors
> >to take advantage and provide such information in ACPI tables. Can we
> >guarantee that a kernel with the current ACPI patches wouldn't blow up
> >when it tries to interpret the new tables? If we can't guarantee this,
> >we rather fix it now. Some suggestions:
> >
> >a) Make sure code which doesn't have a clear behaviour on ARM is not
> > compiled in and doesn't even try to interpret such tables on ARM (you
> > could just go for the latter but I'm not sure how feasible it is)
>
> This what we have suggested in past especially for this S-state support.
> Currently the core acpi code compiles in sleep support unconditionally.
> That doesn't mean we need to do the same on ARM64, we can easily make
> sure that's not enabled for ARM64 until we have clarification on how to
> support them on ARM in ACPI specification.
>
> I just pointed out at one "out of spec" workaround done for x86
> "unconditionally" in the code just to tell that it won't work on ARM.
> That shouldn't be misunderstood as demand for refactoring as we have no
> clue how S-state would look on ARM to take up any such task.
>
For the sleep.c case I worked on this and sent some updates to Hanjun so
it should be compiled out in the next version of the patches.
Graeme
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 16:06 ` Graeme Gregory
@ 2014-09-11 16:14 ` Sudeep Holla
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2014-09-11 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Graeme Gregory
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Catalin Marinas, grant.likely, Mark Rutland,
linaro-acpi, Will Deacon, Lv Zheng, Rob Herring,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Daniel Lezcano, Robert Moore, linux-acpi,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, Robert Richter, Jason Cooper,
Arnd Bergmann, Marc Zyngier, Liviu Dudau, Mark Brown,
Bjorn Helgaas, linux-arm-kernel, graeme.gregory, Randy Dunlap,
Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-kernel, hanjun.guo, Olof Johansson
On 11/09/14 17:06, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:57:24PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
[...]
>> This what we have suggested in past especially for this S-state support.
>> Currently the core acpi code compiles in sleep support unconditionally.
>> That doesn't mean we need to do the same on ARM64, we can easily make
>> sure that's not enabled for ARM64 until we have clarification on how to
>> support them on ARM in ACPI specification.
>>
>> I just pointed out at one "out of spec" workaround done for x86
>> "unconditionally" in the code just to tell that it won't work on ARM.
>> That shouldn't be misunderstood as demand for refactoring as we have no
>> clue how S-state would look on ARM to take up any such task.
>>
> For the sleep.c case I worked on this and sent some updates to Hanjun so
> it should be compiled out in the next version of the patches.
>
Thanks Graeme, that's much better than any hooks/stubs which might fail
depending on ACPI table contents.
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-11 15:57 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2014-09-15 4:31 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-15 9:15 ` Catalin Marinas
1 sibling, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-15 4:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas
Cc: hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:37:39 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> > completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> > a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> > refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> > on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> > against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>
> I have to disagree here. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with refactoring
> happening later but I'm not happy with compiling in code with undefined
> behaviour on ARM that may actually be executed at run-time.
>
> I'm being told one of the main advantages of ACPI is forward
> compatibility: running older kernels on newer hardware (potentially with
> newer ACPI version tables). ACPI 5.1 includes partial support for ARM
> but the S and C states are not defined yet. We therefore assume that
> hardware vendors deploying servers using ACPI would not provide such
> yet to be defined information in ACPI 5.1 tables.
We're good on this front. ACPI-future platforms aren't allowed to use
new features when booting an older kernel. ACPI has a mechanism to check
version numbers. Similarly, when ACPI-future defines those states, the
kernel shouldn't expose them to an older platform.
> What if in a year time we get ACPI 5.2 or 6 (or an errata update)
> covering the S and C states for ARM? I would expect hardware vendors
> to take advantage and provide such information in ACPI tables. Can we
> guarantee that a kernel with the current ACPI patches wouldn't blow up
> when it tries to interpret the new tables?
Yes - at least as much as we can guarantee anything in systems
programming.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-15 4:31 ` Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-15 9:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-15 22:48 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-15 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:31:16AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:37:39 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> > > completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> > > a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> > > refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> > > on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> > > against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
> >
> > I have to disagree here. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with refactoring
> > happening later but I'm not happy with compiling in code with undefined
> > behaviour on ARM that may actually be executed at run-time.
> >
> > I'm being told one of the main advantages of ACPI is forward
> > compatibility: running older kernels on newer hardware (potentially with
> > newer ACPI version tables). ACPI 5.1 includes partial support for ARM
> > but the S and C states are not defined yet. We therefore assume that
> > hardware vendors deploying servers using ACPI would not provide such
> > yet to be defined information in ACPI 5.1 tables.
>
> We're good on this front. ACPI-future platforms aren't allowed to use
> new features when booting an older kernel.
Do you mean ACPI-future firmware should not provide new information to
older kernels? The firmware must not care which kernel version (not even
which OS) runs on top. That's the whole point of an OS-agnostic
standardisation body).
> ACPI has a mechanism to check version numbers.
I assume you are referring to the kernel checking of the ACPI version
the tables are compatible with (acpi_parse_fadt() in patch 7/17 in the
v3 series). With these patches, it currently assumes that it is
compatible with anything 5.1 and later.
> Similarly, when ACPI-future defines those states, the kernel shouldn't
> expose them to an older platform.
When the kernel implements ACPI-future, all is fine, it should still be
backwards compatible with 5.1.
> > What if in a year time we get ACPI 5.2 or 6 (or an errata update)
> > covering the S and C states for ARM? I would expect hardware vendors
> > to take advantage and provide such information in ACPI tables. Can we
> > guarantee that a kernel with the current ACPI patches wouldn't blow up
> > when it tries to interpret the new tables?
>
> Yes - at least as much as we can guarantee anything in systems
> programming.
No, we don't. Once you define some sleep states in ACPI-future and
the firmware provides such tables to an older kernel, it is possible
that the current (x86-centric) ACPI sleep code will fault. Just look at
the acpi_suspend_enter() (and you also seemed OK to define
ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE as BUG).
Even if v4 of these patches removed the sleep code, given uncertainties
like above I'm thinking more and more that we should actually make the
acpi_parse_fadt() version check succeed only on ACPI 5.1 and no later
version (apart from ACPI sleep, is there anything else we would expect
to blow up when additional information is provided via ACPI-future
tables?).
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-15 9:15 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-15 22:48 ` Grant Likely
2014-09-16 10:12 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-15 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Catalin Marinas
Cc: hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:15:16 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:31:16AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:37:39 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> > > > completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> > > > a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> > > > refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> > > > on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> > > > against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
> > >
> > > I have to disagree here. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with refactoring
> > > happening later but I'm not happy with compiling in code with undefined
> > > behaviour on ARM that may actually be executed at run-time.
> > >
> > > I'm being told one of the main advantages of ACPI is forward
> > > compatibility: running older kernels on newer hardware (potentially with
> > > newer ACPI version tables). ACPI 5.1 includes partial support for ARM
> > > but the S and C states are not defined yet. We therefore assume that
> > > hardware vendors deploying servers using ACPI would not provide such
> > > yet to be defined information in ACPI 5.1 tables.
> >
> > We're good on this front. ACPI-future platforms aren't allowed to use
> > new features when booting an older kernel.
>
> Do you mean ACPI-future firmware should not provide new information to
> older kernels?
I mean that ACPI has the mechanism so that the platform (via AML)
doesn't try to do things that the OS doesn't understand. AML methods are
to use the \_REV object to determine whether or not it can use a
feature. If, for example, the _REV is 5, then the AML must switch itself
to code paths that don't use ACPI 6 features.
> The firmware must not care which kernel version (not even
> which OS) runs on top. That's the whole point of an OS-agnostic
> standardisation body).
It shouldn't care about the OS, but it absolutely needs to care about
which revision of ACPI spec that the OS implements, and the ACPI spec
accounts for exactly that.
> > ACPI has a mechanism to check version numbers.
>
> I assume you are referring to the kernel checking of the ACPI version
> the tables are compatible with (acpi_parse_fadt() in patch 7/17 in the
> v3 series). With these patches, it currently assumes that it is
> compatible with anything 5.1 and later.
No, that's the other side. That's how the OS determines which version of
the spec the ACPI tables implement. That's how the OS decides if it
needs to use the behaviour from an older revision of the spec.
For the kernel to accept anything 5.1 or later is the correct behavour
here. ACPI compatibility is driven by the lowest common denominator. The
kernel and the platform (AML) choose the most recent version of the spec
that is supported by both.
> > Similarly, when ACPI-future defines those states, the kernel shouldn't
> > expose them to an older platform.
>
> When the kernel implements ACPI-future, all is fine, it should still be
> backwards compatible with 5.1.
>
> > > What if in a year time we get ACPI 5.2 or 6 (or an errata update)
> > > covering the S and C states for ARM? I would expect hardware vendors
> > > to take advantage and provide such information in ACPI tables. Can we
> > > guarantee that a kernel with the current ACPI patches wouldn't blow up
> > > when it tries to interpret the new tables?
> >
> > Yes - at least as much as we can guarantee anything in systems
> > programming.
>
> No, we don't. Once you define some sleep states in ACPI-future and
> the firmware provides such tables to an older kernel, it is possible
> that the current (x86-centric) ACPI sleep code will fault. Just look at
> the acpi_suspend_enter() (and you also seemed OK to define
> ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE as BUG).
>
> Even if v4 of these patches removed the sleep code, given uncertainties
> like above I'm thinking more and more that we should actually make the
> acpi_parse_fadt() version check succeed only on ACPI 5.1 and no later
> version (apart from ACPI sleep, is there anything else we would expect
> to blow up when additional information is provided via ACPI-future
> tables?).
I was about to agree with you that we could do that temporarily, but
after thinking about it more, this is actually an actively dangerous
thing to do because it will encourage firmware vendors to lie about
which version of the ACPI spec it conforms to. ie. A vendor may build a
platform and use the ACPI6.0 spec, but they want it to boot on an older
kernel, and so they make their tables lie and report 5.1. This would be
a horrible situation. We would loose the ability to use reported ACPI
spec comformance to determine which features to enable.
Selecting on v5.1 or later really is the right choice here. Vendors who
do the wrong thing and produce broken firmware will get rightly dumped
on by Red Hat and Canonical for shipping something that doesn't work.
We have a lot less risk here than ACPI had historically in the x86 world
because these systems are primarily built to run Linux instead of
Windows. That means the systems will be tested and validated with
released Linux distros, and they will fix the firmware if it is broken.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-15 22:48 ` Grant Likely
@ 2014-09-16 10:12 ` Catalin Marinas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Catalin Marinas @ 2014-09-16 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: grant.likely
Cc: hanjun.guo, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland, Olof Johansson,
graeme.gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:48:00PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:15:16 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:31:16AM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:37:39 +0100, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 02:29:34PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > > Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> > > > > completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> > > > > a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> > > > > refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> > > > > on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> > > > > against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
> > > >
> > > > I have to disagree here. As I said, I'm perfectly fine with refactoring
> > > > happening later but I'm not happy with compiling in code with undefined
> > > > behaviour on ARM that may actually be executed at run-time.
> > > >
> > > > I'm being told one of the main advantages of ACPI is forward
> > > > compatibility: running older kernels on newer hardware (potentially with
> > > > newer ACPI version tables). ACPI 5.1 includes partial support for ARM
> > > > but the S and C states are not defined yet. We therefore assume that
> > > > hardware vendors deploying servers using ACPI would not provide such
> > > > yet to be defined information in ACPI 5.1 tables.
> > >
> > > We're good on this front. ACPI-future platforms aren't allowed to use
> > > new features when booting an older kernel.
> >
> > Do you mean ACPI-future firmware should not provide new information to
> > older kernels?
>
> I mean that ACPI has the mechanism so that the platform (via AML)
> doesn't try to do things that the OS doesn't understand. AML methods are
> to use the \_REV object to determine whether or not it can use a
> feature. If, for example, the _REV is 5, then the AML must switch itself
> to code paths that don't use ACPI 6 features.
So you are talking about AML code paths and from what I understand they
should be fine.
However, what I'm talking about is _kernel_ code paths and functions
like acpi_suspend_enter(). Do you mean this function can only be called
as a result of some AML execution (it doesn't look so to me)? If not,
what guarantees do we have that ACPI-future tables exposed to an older
kernel would not trigger this kernel code path (if compiled in)?
--
Catalin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 13:29 ` [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 Grant Likely
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2014-09-11 15:37 ` Catalin Marinas
@ 2014-09-11 16:05 ` Olof Johansson
2014-09-15 4:37 ` Grant Likely
3 siblings, 1 reply; 117+ messages in thread
From: Olof Johansson @ 2014-09-11 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>> ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
>> download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
>> this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
>> code to run ACPI on ARM64.
>>
>> ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
>> method which are essential for ARM platforms:
>> 1) MADT table updates.
>> 2) FADT updates for PSCI
>> 3) GTDT
>>
>> This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
>> and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
>> patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
>> in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
>>
>> We first introduce acpi.c and its related head file which are needed
>> by ACPI core, and then get RSDP to extract all the ACPI boot-time tables.
>> When all the boot-time tables (FADT, MADT, GTDT) are ready, then
>> parse them to init the sytem when booted. Specifically,
>> a) we use FADT to init PSCI and use PSCI to boot SMP;
>> b) Use MADT for GIC init and SMP init;
>> c) GTDT for arch timer init.
>>
>> This patch set is based on 3.17-rc2 and was tested by Graeme on Juno
>> and FVP base model boot with ACPI only OK, if you want to test them,
>> you can pull from acpi-5.1-v3 branch in leg/acpi repo:
>> git://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git
>>
>> Updates since v2:
>> - Refactor the code to make SMP/PSCI init with less sperated init
>> path by Tomasz
>> - make ACPI depend on EXPERT
>> - Address lots of comments from Catalin, Sudeep, Geoff
>> - Add Juno device ACPI driver patches for review
>>
>> Updates since v1:
>> - Set ACPI default off on ARM64 suggested by Olof;
>> - Rebase the patch set on top of linux-next branch/linux-pm tree which
>> includes the ACPICA for full ACPI 5.1 support.
>> - Update the document as suggested;
>> - Adress lots of comments from Mark, Sudeep, Randy, Naresh, Olof, Geoff
>> and more...
>>
>> [1]: http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_5_1release.pdf
>
> I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
> comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
> arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
> manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
> the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
> entire series again.
I'm going to take a pass on the next version of the series that will
get posted; I've been a bit too busy to pay close attention to the
series the last few weeks and I might as well wait until the next
version at this rate.
> Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
>
> I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
> linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
> a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
That's not how -next works. We only add code to -next that is targeted
to the upcoming release, we certainly don't add it to get "wider
exposure". If the code is ready then it can go in, but that's not the
case at this time.
For "wider exposure" -- who do you have in mind? Everybody that's
currently got hardware relevant for this already needs out-of-tree
patches, so getting it into -next doesn't add any exposure. Doesn't
Linaro do kernel builds and publish trees for this reason already?
-Olof
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
2014-09-11 16:05 ` Olof Johansson
@ 2014-09-15 4:37 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 0 replies; 117+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2014-09-15 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Olof Johansson
Cc: Hanjun Guo, Catalin Marinas, Rafael J. Wysocki, Mark Rutland,
Graeme Gregory, Arnd Bergmann, Sudeep Holla, Will Deacon,
Jason Cooper, Marc Zyngier, Bjorn Helgaas, Daniel Lezcano,
Mark Brown, Rob Herring, Robert Richter, Lv Zheng, Robert Moore,
Lorenzo Pieralisi, Liviu Dudau, Randy Dunlap,
Charles Garcia-Tobin, linux-acpi, linux-arm-kernel, linux-kernel,
linaro-acpi
On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:05:25 -0700, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for
> >> download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM,
> >> this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the
> >> code to run ACPI on ARM64.
> >>
> >> ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and
> >> method which are essential for ARM platforms:
> >> 1) MADT table updates.
> >> 2) FADT updates for PSCI
> >> 3) GTDT
> >>
> >> This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT
> >> and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this
> >> patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only
> >> in the follwing patch set for review purpose.
> >>
> >> We first introduce acpi.c and its related head file which are needed
> >> by ACPI core, and then get RSDP to extract all the ACPI boot-time tables.
> >> When all the boot-time tables (FADT, MADT, GTDT) are ready, then
> >> parse them to init the sytem when booted. Specifically,
> >> a) we use FADT to init PSCI and use PSCI to boot SMP;
> >> b) Use MADT for GIC init and SMP init;
> >> c) GTDT for arch timer init.
> >>
> >> This patch set is based on 3.17-rc2 and was tested by Graeme on Juno
> >> and FVP base model boot with ACPI only OK, if you want to test them,
> >> you can pull from acpi-5.1-v3 branch in leg/acpi repo:
> >> git://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git
> >>
> >> Updates since v2:
> >> - Refactor the code to make SMP/PSCI init with less sperated init
> >> path by Tomasz
> >> - make ACPI depend on EXPERT
> >> - Address lots of comments from Catalin, Sudeep, Geoff
> >> - Add Juno device ACPI driver patches for review
> >>
> >> Updates since v1:
> >> - Set ACPI default off on ARM64 suggested by Olof;
> >> - Rebase the patch set on top of linux-next branch/linux-pm tree which
> >> includes the ACPICA for full ACPI 5.1 support.
> >> - Update the document as suggested;
> >> - Adress lots of comments from Mark, Sudeep, Randy, Naresh, Olof, Geoff
> >> and more...
> >>
> >> [1]: http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_5_1release.pdf
> >
> > I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few
> > comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into
> > arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and
> > manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see
> > the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the
> > entire series again.
>
> I'm going to take a pass on the next version of the series that will
> get posted; I've been a bit too busy to pay close attention to the
> series the last few weeks and I might as well wait until the next
> version at this rate.
I've asked Hanjun to prepare diffs from one version of the series to the
next so that I don't need to rereview the entire thing. He sent them to
me privately. Do you want me to pass them along to you?
>
> > Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I
> > completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be
> > a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of
> > refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement
> > on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test
> > against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder.
> >
> > I would really like to see the next version of this series go into
> > linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got
> > a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet?
>
> That's not how -next works. We only add code to -next that is targeted
> to the upcoming release, we certainly don't add it to get "wider
> exposure". If the code is ready then it can go in, but that's not the
> case at this time.
Sorry, I had a bad moment there. Apologies. Getting it into Fengguang's
builder is appropriate though.
> For "wider exposure" -- who do you have in mind? Everybody that's
> currently got hardware relevant for this already needs out-of-tree
> patches, so getting it into -next doesn't add any exposure. Doesn't
> Linaro do kernel builds and publish trees for this reason already?
There is the wider exposure of ensuring the ACPI patches don't interfere
with non-ACPI users, and also making sure it builds with configuration
combinations that we've not tried.
g.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 117+ messages in thread