[Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 11/21] ARM64 / ACPI: Get PSCI flags in FADT for PSCI init

[al.stone@linaro.org (Al Stone)]

On 02/05/2015 10:49 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> Hi Al,

Howdy, Lorenzo.

> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:11:31PM +0000, Al Stone wrote:
>> On 02/04/2015 09:43 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:45:39PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> 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 in ACPI 5.1, FADT table was
>>>> parsed in ACPI table init and copy to struct acpi_gbl_FADT, so
>>>> use the flags in struct acpi_gbl_FADT for PSCI init.
>>>
>>> So you do rely on a global FADT being available, if you use it for PSCI
>>> detection you can use it for ACPI revision detection too, right ?
>>>
>>> Point is, either we should not use the global FADT table, or we use
>>> it consistently, or there is something I am unaware of that prevents
>>> you from using in some code paths and I would like to understand
>>> why.
>>
>> The FADT is a required table for arm64, as noted in the documentation
>> and the SBBR.  While unfortunately the spec does not say it is mandatory,
>> even x86 systems are pretty useless without it.  So yes, we rely on it
>> being available, not only for the PSCI info, but other flags such as
>> HW_REDUCED_ACPI.
>>
>> I suppose it does not have to be globally scoped.  However, the FADT is
>> frequently used, especially on x86, so it makes sense to me from an
>> efficiency standpoint to have a global reference to it.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what is meant by using FADT for ACPI revision
>> detection; there are fields in the FADT that provide a major and minor
>> number for the FADT itself, but I don't believe there's any guarantee
>> those will be the same as the level of the specification that is being
>> supported by the kernel (chances are they will, but it's not mandatory).
>>
>> I've probably just missed a part of a thread somewhere; could you point
>> me to where the inconsistency lies?  I'm just not understanding right this
>> second....
> 
> Yes, it is my fault, I was referring to another thread/patch (9), where you
> need to check the FADT revision to "validate it" (ie >= 5.1) for the arm64
> kernel. What I am saying is: if the global FADT is there to parse PSCI
> info, it is there to check the FADT revision too, I do not necessarily
> see the need for calling acpi_table_parse() again to do it, the FADT
> revision checking can be carried out as for PSCI, that's all I wanted
> to say.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo
> 

Aha.  I understand now.  Another colleague was also trying to explain this
to me and I think I just hadn't had enough coffee yet.  The underlying ACPI
code maps tables into the kernel in two phases; it may be that when the code
in patch 9 is run, the global table is not yet available, while here it is;
I don't recall off-hand.

I'll take a look at this and talk it over with Hanjun.  If the global table
is available, it would indeed make sense to be consistent.

Thanks for the explanation; that really helped me.

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Linaro Enterprise Group
al.stone at linaro.org
-----------------------------------