Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu PATCH v2 3/4] nvdimm, acpi: support NFIT platform capabilities

[Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:06:37PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Linux-nvdimm [mailto:linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of
> > Ross Zwisler
> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 12:00 AM
> > Subject: [qemu PATCH v2 3/4] nvdimm, acpi: support NFIT platform
> > capabilities
> > 
> > Add a machine command line option to allow the user to control the
> > Platform
> > Capabilities Structure in the virtualized NFIT.  This Platform
> > Capabilities
> > Structure was added in ACPI 6.2 Errata A.
> > 
> ...
> > +Platform Capabilities
> > +---------------------
> > +
> > +ACPI 6.2 Errata A added support for a new Platform Capabilities Structure
> > +which allows the platform to communicate what features it supports
> > related to
> > +NVDIMM data durability.  Users can provide a capabilities value to a
> > guest via
> > +the optional "nvdimm-cap" machine command line option:
> > +
> > +    -machine pc,accel=kvm,nvdimm,nvdimm-cap=2
> > +
> > +As of ACPI 6.2 Errata A, the following values are valid for the bottom
> > two
> > +bits:
> > +
> > +2 - Memory Controller Flush to NVDIMM Durability on Power Loss Capable.
> > +3 - CPU Cache Flush to NVDIMM Durability on Power Loss Capable.
> 
> It's a bit unclear that those are decimal values for the field, not 
> bit numbers.

Hmm..I was trying to be clear by saying "the following values are valid for
the bottom two bits", and having 2 and 3 as the possible values.

Would it help to show them in hex?

  As of ACPI 6.2 Errata A, the following values are valid for the bottom two
  bits:
  
  0x2 - Memory Controller Flush to NVDIMM Durability on Power Loss Capable.
  0x3 - CPU Cache Flush to NVDIMM Durability on Power Loss Capable.

More clearly showing that they are values created by combining bitfields?

> > -static GArray *nvdimm_build_device_structure(void)
> > +/*
> > + * ACPI 6.2 Errata A: 5.2.25.9 NVDIMM Platform Capabilities Structure
> > + */
> > +static void
> > +nvdimm_build_structure_caps(GArray *structures, uint32_t capabilities)
> > +{
> > +    NvdimmNfitPlatformCaps *nfit_caps;
> > +
> > +    nfit_caps = acpi_data_push(structures, sizeof(*nfit_caps));
> > +
> > +    nfit_caps->type = cpu_to_le16(7 /* NVDIMM Platform Capabilities */);
> > +    nfit_caps->length = cpu_to_le16(sizeof(*nfit_caps));
> > +    nfit_caps->highest_cap = 2;
> > +    nfit_caps->capabilities = cpu_to_le32(capabilities);
> 
> highest_cap needs to be set to a value that at least covers the highest 
> bit set to 1 used in capabilities.
> 
> As capabilities bits are added, there are three different meanings:
> * 1: bit within highest_cap range, platform is claiming the 1 meaning
> * 0: bit within highest_cap range, platform is claiming the 0 meaning
> * not reported: bit not within highest_cap range, so the platform's
>   implementation of this feature is unknown. Not necessarily the same 
>   as the 0 meaning.
> 
> So, there should be a way to specify a highest_cap value to convey that
> some of the upper capabilities bits are valid and contain 0.

Right, I'll make this dynamic based on the capabilities value passed in by the
user.  That's a much better solution, thanks.  This should cover all the same
cases as you have outlined above, without burdening the user with yet another
input value.