From: "lihuisong (C)" <lihuisong@huawei.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
<catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<pjaroszynski@nvidia.com>, <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
<sudeep.holla@kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<rmikey@meta.com>, <kernel-team@meta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ACPI: processor: idle: Do not propagate acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() -ENODEV
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 19:31:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6694ca7c-13bf-4e7d-9621-bc992cbf96a7@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ad4UWJ__dnDQtrj8@gmail.com>
On 4/14/2026 6:21 PM, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hello Huisong,
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 05:43:51PM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>> But it is a real issue. Thanks for your report.
>> I think the best way to fix your issue is that remove this verification in
>> psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle().
>> Because it is legal for platform to report one LPI state.
>> This function just needs to verify the LPI states which are FFH.
> Thank you for the prompt feedback.
>
> Would this approach work?
>
> commit 6c9d52840a4f778cc989838ba76ee51416e85de3
> Author: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
> Date: Tue Apr 14 03:16:08 2026 -0700
>
> ACPI: processor: idle: Allow platforms with only one LPI state
>
> psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle() rejects platforms where power.count - 1 <= 0
> by returning -ENODEV. However, having a single LPI state (WFI) is a
> valid configuration. The function's purpose is to verify FFH idle states,
> and when count is zero, there are simply no FFH states to validate —
> this is not an error.
>
> On NVIDIA Grace (aarch64) systems with PSCIv1.1, power.count is 1 for
> all 72 CPUs, so the probe fails with -ENODEV. After commit cac173bea57d
> ("ACPI: processor: idle: Rework the handling of
> acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe()"), this failure propagates up and prevents
> cpuidle registration entirely.
>
> Change the check from (count <= 0) to (count < 0) so that platforms
> with only WFI are accepted. The for loop naturally handles count == 0
> by not iterating.
>
> Fixes: cac173bea57d ("ACPI: processor: idle: Rework the handling of acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe()")
> Signed-off-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c
> index 801f9c4501425..7791b751042ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c
> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ static int psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> count = pr->power.count - 1;
> - if (count <= 0)
> + if (count < 0)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
This count already verified in acpi_processor_get_lpi_info.
I suggest modifing it as below:
-->
git diff
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c b/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c
index 801f9c450142..c68a5db8ebba 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/arm64/cpuidle.c
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
static int psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
{
- int i, count;
+ int i;
struct acpi_lpi_state *lpi;
struct acpi_processor *pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu);
@@ -30,14 +30,10 @@ static int psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
if (!psci_ops.cpu_suspend)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
- count = pr->power.count - 1;
- if (count <= 0)
- return -ENODEV;
-
- for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ for (i = 1; i < pr->power.count; i++) {
u32 state;
- lpi = &pr->power.lpi_states[i + 1];
+ lpi = &pr->power.lpi_states[i];
/*
* Only bits[31:0] represent a PSCI power_state while
* bits[63:32] must be 0x0 as per ARM ACPI FFH
Specification
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-14 11:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-13 16:54 [PATCH RFC] ACPI: processor: idle: Do not propagate acpi_processor_ffh_lpi_probe() -ENODEV Breno Leitao
2026-04-14 9:43 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-04-14 10:21 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-14 11:31 ` lihuisong (C) [this message]
2026-04-14 12:05 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-14 12:25 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-04-14 13:14 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-14 14:10 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-04-14 16:31 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-15 10:45 ` Sudeep Holla
2026-04-15 1:32 ` lihuisong (C)
2026-04-15 14:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=6694ca7c-13bf-4e7d-9621-bc992cbf96a7@huawei.com \
--to=lihuisong@huawei.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=pjaroszynski@nvidia.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rmikey@meta.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
--cc=will@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