From: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To: Dmytro Maluka <dmaluka@chromium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@linux.microsoft.com>,
Usama Arif <usamaarif642@gmail.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/of: Restore possibility to use both ACPI and FDT from bootloader
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:08:07 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250102180807.GA73778-robh@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241223181813.224446-1-dmaluka@chromium.org>
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 06:18:03PM +0000, Dmytro Maluka wrote:
> There are cases when the bootloader provides information to the kernel
> in both ACPI and DTB, not interchangeably. One such use case is virtual
> machines in Android. When running on x86, the Android Virtualization
> Framework (AVF) boots VMs with ACPI like it is usually done on x86 (i.e.
> the virtual LAPIC, IOAPIC, HPET, PCI MMCONFIG etc are described in ACPI)
> but also passes various AVF-specific boot parameters in DTB. This allows
> reusing the same implementations of various AVF components on both
> arm64 and x86.
Anyone booting Arm ACPI based systems with AVF?
Where's this AVF binding documented?
> Commit 7b937cc243e5 ("of: Create of_root if no dtb provided by firmware")
> removed the possibility to do that, since among other things
> it introduced forcing emptying the bootloader-provided DTB if ACPI is
> enabled (probably assuming that if ACPI is available, a DTB can only be
> useful for applying overlays to it afterwards, for testing purposes).
>
> So restore this possibility. At the same time, since the aforementioned
> recently introduced restriction is actually useful for preventing
> conflicts between ACPI and DT for LAPIC/IOAPIC/HPET setup, don't remove
> this restriction completely but relax it: unflatten the bootloader
> supplied DTB but don't try to use it for SMP setup (i.e. don't override
> the .parse_smp_cfg callback) if ACPI is enabled. Precisely, right now
> this prevents at least:
>
> - incorrectly calling register_lapic_address(APIC_DEFAULT_PHYS_BASE)
> after the LAPIC was already successfully enumerated via ACPI, causing
> noisy kernel warnings and probably potential real issues as well
>
> - failed IOAPIC setup in the case when IOAPIC is enumerated via mptable
> instead of ACPI (e.g. with acpi=noirq), due to
> mpparse_parse_smp_config() overridden by x86_dtb_parse_smp_config()
It would be better if we explicitly opt'ed into "things we want to get
from DT" rather than allowing anything except what we check for. There's
a strong desire at least for arm64 to prevent systems from using both
at the same time. There are growing usecases for doing just that, but I
think we need to have some control or restrictions in place to define
what we support in the kernel.
> Fixes: 7b937cc243e5 ("of: Create of_root if no dtb provided by firmware")
> Signed-off-by: Dmytro Maluka <dmaluka@chromium.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 10 +---------
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c b/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c
> index 59d23cdf4ed0..dd8748c45529 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/devicetree.c
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> /*
> * Architecture specific OF callbacks.
> */
> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> @@ -313,6 +314,6 @@ void __init x86_flattree_get_config(void)
> if (initial_dtb)
> early_memunmap(dt, map_len);
> #endif
> - if (of_have_populated_dt())
> + if (acpi_disabled && of_have_populated_dt())
> x86_init.mpparse.parse_smp_cfg = x86_dtb_parse_smp_config;
I would make this a separate patch. Then it can be backported to kernel
versions without 7b937cc243e5. And then Thomas can take it and I can
take the DT part.
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-02 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-23 18:18 [PATCH] x86/of: Restore possibility to use both ACPI and FDT from bootloader Dmytro Maluka
2025-01-02 18:08 ` Rob Herring [this message]
2025-01-02 22:18 ` Dmytro Maluka
2025-01-03 14:19 ` Rob Herring
2025-01-06 11:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-01-06 18:51 ` Dmytro Maluka
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=20250102180807.GA73778-robh@kernel.org \
--to=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dmaluka@chromium.org \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=ssengar@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=usamaarif642@gmail.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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).