From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751471AbaIISFJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 14:05:09 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:59111 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751112AbaIISFH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2014 14:05:07 -0400 Message-ID: <540F4155.4090200@arm.com> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 19:05:09 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Mark Rutland CC: Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Catalin Marinas , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Olof Johansson , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Will Deacon , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Bjorn Helgaas , Daniel Lezcano , Mark Brown , Rob Herring , Robert Richter , Lv Zheng , Robert Moore , Liviu Dudau , Randy Dunlap , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables References: <1409583475-6978-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1409583475-6978-3-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20140909162648.GE2910@arm.com> <540F2DCF.1010104@redhat.com> <20140909171541.GD3896@leverpostej> <20140909175010.GF4948@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20140909175010.GF4948@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2014 18:05:01.0058 (UTC) FILETIME=[92E31E20:01CFCC58] X-MC-Unique: 114090919050305701 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote: >>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation >>>>> + * >>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd. >>>>> + * Author: Hanjun Guo >>>>> + * Author: Graeme Gregory >>>>> + * >>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as >>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + >>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H >>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H >>>>> + >>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64") >>>> >>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the >>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would >>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to >>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the >>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64. >>> >>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support >>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3). >> >> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT, >> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either. >> >>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86, >>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should >>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway. >> >> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit >> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags. >> >>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of >>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to >>> define more flexible C-States later on. >> >> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code >> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms >> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might >> actually report things correctly. > > I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above > in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem > is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically > has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what > Catalin pointed out. > > I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason > why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that > does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from > returning an error code, in the best case scenario. > I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is: " /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */ acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1); " I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it properly. Regards, Sudeep