Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Cc: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
	Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>, Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@arm.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/17] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:23:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <61335531.hz91PL2Gdf@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140911132935.068DCC408F6@trevor.secretlab.ca>

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.