Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v8 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

[Hanjun Guo]

On 2015å02æ04æ 01:43, Al Stone wrote:
> On 02/03/2015 09:47 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:45:28PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is the v8 of ACPI core patches for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1, there are
> > > some updates since v7:
> > >
> > >   - Add two more documantation to explain why we need ACPI in ARM64 servers
> > >     by Grant, and recommendations and prohibitions on the use of the numerous
> > >     ACPI tables and objects by Al Stone.
> > >
> > >   - Add two patches which is need to map acpi tables after acpi_gbl_permanent_mmap
> > >     is set
> > >
> > >   - Add another patch "dt / chosen: Add linux,uefi-stub-generated-dtb property"
> > >     to address that if firmware providing no dtb, we can try ACPI configuration data
> > >     even if no "acpi=force" is passed in early parameters. (I think ACPI for XEN and
> > >     kexec need consider sperately as disscussed, correct me if I'm wrong).
> > >
> > >   - Add CC in the patch to the subsystem maintainers and modify the subject
> > >     of the patch to explicitly show the subsystem touched by this patch set,
> > >     please help us to review and ack them if they make sense, thanks.
> > >
> > >   - Add Tested-by from Qualcomm and Redhat;
> > >
> > >   - Make ACPI depends on PCI suggested by Catalin;
> > >
> > >   - Clean up SMP init function as Lorenzo suggested, remove physical
> > >     CPU hot-plug code in the patch;
> > >
> > >   - Address some comments from Marc and explicitly state that will
> > >     implment statcked irqdomain and GIC init framework when GICv3 and
> > >     ITS, GICv2m are implemented;
> > >
> > >   - Rebased on top of 3.19-rc7.
> > >
> > > previous version is here:
> > > v7: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/14/586
> > > v6: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/4/40
> > >
> > > Any comments are welcome :)
> >
> > I note that for ACPI the PMU interrupt information is stored in the GICC
> > (as "Performance Interrupt" and "Performance Interrupt Mode"), but I
> > don't see any code for handling that as part of this series.
> >
> > Is anyone currently looking into that?
>
> Yes.  IIRC, it's a pretty small patch that I'll be including in the
> Seattle patches that build on top of this core set.
>
> > For those systems ACPI is being developed on do we know that the GICC
> > information for the PMU interrupts is sane?
>
> Yes.  We know this works for Seattle platforms, using their latest firmware.
>
> > I'm slightly worried about the prospect of adding support later only to
> > find that the performance interrupt data in contemporary GICC tables is
> > invalid; it's going to be extremely painful to detect that being the
> > case in order to perform any kind of workaround.
>
> That will depend on the error, of course.  It was pretty straightforward
> when the interrupt value was set to zero in some of the early tables we
> used.

If we are not worrying about too much patch in this series, I can
cherry-pick Mark Salter's ACPI PMU patch for Seattle in next version.

Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/