From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] ARM64: kernel: implement ACPI parking protocol
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:18:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160224141832.GA26630@red-moon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160203161834.GB26487@MBP.local>
[+ Itaru]
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 04:18:36PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:21:12AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:26:58PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:10:38AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > The SBBR and ACPI specifications allow ACPI based systems that do not
> > > > implement PSCI (eg systems with no EL3) to boot through the ACPI parking
> > > > protocol specification[1].
> > > >
> > > > This patch implements the ACPI parking protocol CPU operations, and adds
> > > > code that eases parsing the parking protocol data structures to the
> > > > ARM64 SMP initializion carried out at the same time as cpus enumeration.
> > > >
> > > > To wake-up the CPUs from the parked state, this patch implements a
> > > > wakeup IPI for ARM64 (ie arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask()) that mirrors the
> > > > ARM one, so that a specific IPI is sent for wake-up purpose in order
> > > > to distinguish it from other IPI sources.
> > > >
> > > > Given the current ACPI MADT parsing API, the patch implements a glue
> > > > layer that helps passing MADT GICC data structure from SMP initialization
> > > > code to the parking protocol implementation somewhat overriding the CPU
> > > > operations interfaces. This to avoid creating a completely trasparent
> > > > DT/ACPI CPU operations layer that would require creating opaque
> > > > structure handling for CPUs data (DT represents CPU through DT nodes, ACPI
> > > > through static MADT table entries), which seems overkill given that ACPI
> > > > on ARM64 mandates only two booting protocols (PSCI and parking protocol),
> > > > so there is no need for further protocol additions.
> > > >
> > > > Based on the original work by Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://acpica.org/sites/acpica/files/MP%20Startup%20for%20ARM%20platforms.docx
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> > > > Cc: Loc Ho <lho@apm.com>
> > > > Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Al Stone <ahs3@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Applied, with a minor addition just to warn people from not using it in
> > > other configurations (#ifdef still needed otherwise the
> > > acpi_parking_protocol_valid symbol is not available; but I prefer uglier
> > > code than people starting to use this IPI in their firmware):
> >
> > It makes sense, we could include asm/acpi.h in smp.c (which is not
> > included by linux/acpi.h if !CONFIG_ACPI) to pull in the symbol and
> > remove the ifdef if you think it is cleaner.
>
> I don't think it's worth.
>
> BTW, the acpi_parking_protocol_valid() definition has an __init
> annotation while the declaration does not. I removed the __init
> altogether since I get a section mismatch warning when being called from
> handle_IPI.
Catalin,
Itaru spotted an issue related to ioremapping the mailbox in the
cpu_postboot method where I can't really use ioremap since irqs
are disabled on the secondaries coming up at that point, I missed
that, apologies (I wanted to avoid leaving the mailboxes mapped
after boot).
So, options to fix it:
(1) we leave the mailboxes mapped
(2) we remove the FW check in the postboot method (running on
secondaries)
(3) I add a cpu_ops method to clean-up resources used for
booting secondaries and there I can unmap the mailboxes
Frankly, they are all unappealing, I would go for (1), patch below, Itaru
can you give it a go please on Mustang against arm64 for-next/core ?
Thanks,
Lorenzo
-- >8 --
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_parking_protocol.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_parking_protocol.c
index 4b1e5a7..b56fc0d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_parking_protocol.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_parking_protocol.c
@@ -21,7 +21,14 @@
#include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
+struct parking_protocol_mailbox {
+ __le32 cpu_id;
+ __le32 reserved;
+ __le64 entry_point;
+};
+
struct cpu_mailbox_entry {
+ struct parking_protocol_mailbox __iomem *mailbox;
phys_addr_t mailbox_addr;
u8 version;
u8 gic_cpu_id;
@@ -59,12 +66,6 @@ static int acpi_parking_protocol_cpu_prepare(unsigned int cpu)
return 0;
}
-struct parking_protocol_mailbox {
- __le32 cpu_id;
- __le32 reserved;
- __le64 entry_point;
-};
-
static int acpi_parking_protocol_cpu_boot(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct cpu_mailbox_entry *cpu_entry = &cpu_mailbox_entries[cpu];
@@ -107,7 +108,11 @@ static int acpi_parking_protocol_cpu_boot(unsigned int cpu)
arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask(cpumask_of(cpu));
- iounmap(mailbox);
+ /*
+ * stash the mailbox address mapping to use it for checks
+ * in post boot method
+ */
+ cpu_entry->mailbox = mailbox;
return 0;
}
@@ -116,32 +121,15 @@ static void acpi_parking_protocol_cpu_postboot(void)
{
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
struct cpu_mailbox_entry *cpu_entry = &cpu_mailbox_entries[cpu];
- struct parking_protocol_mailbox __iomem *mailbox;
+ struct parking_protocol_mailbox __iomem *mailbox = cpu_entry->mailbox;
__le64 entry_point;
- /*
- * Map mailbox memory with attribute device nGnRE (ie ioremap -
- * this deviates from the parking protocol specifications since
- * the mailboxes are required to be mapped nGnRnE; the attribute
- * discrepancy is harmless insofar as the protocol specification
- * is concerned).
- * If the mailbox is mistakenly allocated in the linear mapping
- * by FW ioremap will fail since the mapping will be prevented
- * by the kernel (it clashes with the linear mapping attributes
- * specifications).
- */
- mailbox = ioremap(cpu_entry->mailbox_addr, sizeof(*mailbox));
- if (!mailbox)
- return;
-
entry_point = readl_relaxed(&mailbox->entry_point);
/*
* Check if firmware has cleared the entry_point as expected
* by the protocol specification.
*/
WARN_ON(entry_point);
-
- iounmap(mailbox);
}
const struct cpu_operations acpi_parking_protocol_ops = {
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-24 14:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-26 11:10 [PATCH v3] ARM64: kernel: implement ACPI parking protocol Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-26 17:47 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-27 10:23 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2016-01-27 11:46 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-26 23:13 ` Loc Ho
2016-01-27 11:51 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-01-27 17:41 ` Loc Ho
2016-02-02 18:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-02-03 11:21 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-03 16:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2016-02-24 14:18 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi [this message]
2016-02-24 15:03 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-24 23:28 ` Itaru Kitayama
2016-02-25 9:24 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2016-02-25 20:58 ` Loc Ho
2016-02-26 0:23 ` Itaru Kitayama
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160224141832.GA26630@red-moon \
--to=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).