From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: Add PSCI SYSTEM_OFF2 function for hibernation
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:07:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86r0g7za5s.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a2107864d45bd6ac403c218d68bf97025eca971.camel@infradead.org>
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:54:06 +0000,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> [1 <text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 17:29 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >
> > Again, I really oppose this way of doing things. We already have an
> > infrastructure for selecting PSCI levels. You may not like it, but it
> > exists, and I'm not going entertain supporting yet another bike-shed
> > model. Adding an orthogonal cap for a feature that is specific to a
> > new PSCI version is just awful.
>
> Huh? This isn't a "new bike-shed model". This is a straight copy of
> what we *already* have for SYSTEM_RESET2.
There is no KVM capability for SYSTEM_RESET2. It is directly
advertised to the guest when PSCI 1.1 is supported.
> If I were bike-shedding, I wouldn't do separate caps for them; I'd have
> done it as a *bitmask* of the optional PSCI calls that should be
> enabled.
>
> The *mandatory* ones should obviously come from the PSCI version alone,
> but I can't see how that makes sense for the optional ones...
The guest is in a position to probe for what is supported or not with
the PSCI_FEATURES call. Why would you add anything else?
>
> > Please make PSCI 1.3 the only version of PSCI supporting suspend in a
> > non-optional way, and be done with it.
>
> SYSTEM_OFF2 is an *optional* feature in PSCI v1.3. As are
> CLEAR_INV_MEMREGION and CLEAR_INV_MEMREGION_ATTRIBUTES.
>
> Are you suggesting that enabling v1.3 should automatically enable *all*
> of the optional features that were defined in that version (and
> previous versions) of the spec?
No. We have everything we need to incrementally *add* features. So you
can perfectly implement PSCI 1.3 with only SYSTEM_OFF2, and only later
on add the rest, if ever.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-18 18:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-18 16:14 [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add PSCI v1.3 SYSTEM_OFF2 support for hibernation David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] firmware/psci: Add definitions for PSCI v1.3 specification (ALPHA) David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: Add PSCI SYSTEM_OFF2 function for hibernation David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 17:29 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-03-18 17:54 ` David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 18:07 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-03-18 18:17 ` David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: arm64: nvhe: Pass through PSCI v1.3 SYSTEM_OFF2 call David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 16:14 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: Use SYSTEM_OFF2 PSCI call to power off for hibernate David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 16:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add PSCI v1.3 SYSTEM_OFF2 support for hibernation Marc Zyngier
2024-03-18 17:26 ` David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 17:41 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-03-18 18:15 ` David Woodhouse
2024-03-18 18:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-03-18 18:36 ` David Woodhouse
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=86r0g7za5s.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=smostafa@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/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).