From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: anup@brainfault.org (Anup Patel) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 20:33:43 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] PSCI system off and reset for KVM ARM/ARM64 In-Reply-To: <87wqj2ql57.fsf@e102391-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1387280136-13622-1-git-send-email-anup.patel@linaro.org> <20131217185154.GN5711@cbox> <87wqj2ql57.fsf@e102391-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Christoffer Dall writes: > >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 05:05:34PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: >>> The Power State and Coordination Interface (PSCI) specification defines >>> SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET functions for system poweroff and reboot. >>> >>> This patchset adds emulation of PSCI SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET functions >>> in KVM ARM/ARM64 by forwarding them to user space (QEMU or KVMTOOL) using >>> KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT exit reason. >>> >>> To try this patch from guest kernel, we will need PSCI-based restart and >>> poweroff support in the guest kenel for both ARM and ARM64. >>> >>> Rob Herring has already submitted patches for PSCI-based restart and >>> poweroff in ARM kernel but these are not merged yet due unstable device >>> tree bindings of kernel PSCI support. We will be having similar patches >>> for PSCI-based restart and poweroff in ARM64 kernel. >>> (Refer http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg262217.html) >>> (Refer http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg05348.html) >> >> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall >> >> I can merge this series if Marc acks it as well. > > The patches themselves are mostly fine. One issue though: They implement > part of the v0.2 spec, but keep on using the range of function IDs that > we made up for v0.1. > > I just had a chat with the person responsible for the spec, and realized > that the Function IDs mentionned in the v0.2 spec are not optional, and > not using them would be in direct violation of the spec (the new numbers > now come directly from the SMC calling convention). Should we emulate PSCI_VERSION call to help Guest determine the spec version emulated by KVM (i.e. v0.1 or v0.2) ?? > > So I rekon we need to create a separate range for those. Also, I'd like > to progress the DT and kernel side of things as well (otherwise this is > all a bit pointless). > > Rob: what are your plans regarding your PSCI v0.2 patches? > > Thanks, > > M. > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny. > _______________________________________________ > kvmarm mailing list > kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm Regards, Anup