Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-15 Thread Julien Grall 



On 15/09/2016 13:35, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:

On 09/15/2016 04:58 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
I think Jan mentioned at some point that certain versions of Windows
require an early revision although IIRC it was 2.0. So perhaps at some
point we could drop support for pre-2.0 versions, but this was never
going to be part of my series --- the goal was only to make it available
to libxl.


Thank you for the information!

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-15 Thread Boris Ostrovsky 
On 09/15/2016 04:58 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On 15/09/2016 03:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>
>> - julien.gr...@arm.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>
>>> On 14/09/2016 21:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
 On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:


 On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> Hi Julien,

 Hello Shannon,

> On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Shannon,
>>
>> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> From: Shannon Zhao 
>>>
>>> The design of this feature is described as below.
>>> Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables
>>> according
>>> the
>>> number of vcpus and gic controller.
>>>
>>> Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map
>>> space
>>> and
>>> passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot"
>>> protocol.
>>>
>>> At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM
>>> multiboot"
>>> protocol
>>> and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both
>>> ACPI
>>> and DT
>>> information to the Xen DomU.
>>>
>>> Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT,
>>> DSDT
>>> tables
>>> since it's enough now.
>>>
>>> This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI
>>> support
>>> patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2
>>> master
>>> branch:
>>> http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
>>
>> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to
>>> rebuild
>> myself,
>> and go no luck to boot it so far.
>>
> I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which
>>> adds
> the
> support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with
>>> ACPI.
>
> 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen
>>> ARM

 Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some
>>> help for
 Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.

 However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with
>>> the
 following message:

 (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64,
>>> nr_cpu_ids=1
 (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
 (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
 (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller
>>> found.
 (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
 (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
 (d86) Call trace:
 (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
 (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
 (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
 (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
 (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
 (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
 (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
 (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt
>>> controller
 found.

 This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI
>>> 5.1
 (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each
>>> table
 against ACPI 5.1.

>>> Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is
>>> already
>>> updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
>>> One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make
>>> gicc->header.length
>>> 76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM
>>> ACPI
>>> support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.
>>>
>>> Which one do you prefer?
>>
>> Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I
>>> would
>> prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
>> upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your
>>> patches).
>
> I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is
>>> fully
> supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to
>>> support the
> first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only provides
>>> ACPI 5.1).

 And I thought that compatibility was supposed to be ACPI's strong
>>> suit.
 I mistakenly had the impression that new ACPI releases weren't
>>> suppose
 to break old OSes. I take back my comment, you are right that we
>>> should
 stay on 5.1 (including all the erratas, many are important for ARM).

>>>
>>> IIRC, early version of ACPI used to

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-15 Thread Julien Grall 

Hi Boris,

On 15/09/2016 03:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:


- julien.gr...@arm.com wrote:


Hi Stefano,

On 14/09/2016 21:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:

On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:

On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:



On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Shannon,


On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:

Hi Shannon,

On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:

From: Shannon Zhao 

The design of this feature is described as below.
Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables

according

the
number of vcpus and gic controller.

Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map

space

and
passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot"

protocol.


At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM

multiboot"

protocol
and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both

ACPI

and DT
information to the Xen DomU.

Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT,

DSDT

tables
since it's enough now.

This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI

support

patches which could be fetched from linux master or:


https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen




The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2

master

branch:
http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd


On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to

rebuild

myself,
and go no luck to boot it so far.


I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which

adds

the
support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with

ACPI.


402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen

ARM


Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some

help for

Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.

However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with

the

following message:

(d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64,

nr_cpu_ids=1

(d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
(d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
(d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller

found.

(d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
(d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
(d86) Call trace:
(d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
(d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
(d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
(d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
(d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
(d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
(d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
(d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt

controller

found.

This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI

5.1

(see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each

table

against ACPI 5.1.


Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is

already

updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make

gicc->header.length

76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM

ACPI

support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.

Which one do you prefer?


Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I

would

prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your

patches).


I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is

fully

supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to

support the

first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only provides

ACPI 5.1).


And I thought that compatibility was supposed to be ACPI's strong

suit.

I mistakenly had the impression that new ACPI releases weren't

suppose

to break old OSes. I take back my comment, you are right that we

should

stay on 5.1 (including all the erratas, many are important for ARM).



IIRC, early version of ACPI used to have some incompatibility. I will
have to go through the ACPI spec to find the main differences between
5.1 and 6.0 for ARM.



Transition from 1.x to 2.0 introduced incompatibilities (I believe in RSDP
structure definition) but I thought that since then they kept everything back
compatible.


Not related to ARM. But is it the reason why you keep an early version 
of ACPI for HVM guest and never upgraded?


Regards,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-14 Thread Boris Ostrovsky 

- julien.gr...@arm.com wrote:

> Hi Stefano,
> 
> On 14/09/2016 21:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>  On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >> Hi Julien,
> >
> > Hello Shannon,
> >
> >> On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> Hi Shannon,
> >>>
> >>> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>  From: Shannon Zhao 
> 
>  The design of this feature is described as below.
>  Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables
> according
>  the
>  number of vcpus and gic controller.
> 
>  Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map
> space
>  and
>  passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot"
> protocol.
> 
>  At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM
> multiboot"
>  protocol
>  and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both
> ACPI
>  and DT
>  information to the Xen DomU.
> 
>  Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT,
> DSDT
>  tables
>  since it's enough now.
> 
>  This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI
> support
>  patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
> 
> 
> 
>  The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2
> master
>  branch:
>  http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
> >>>
> >>> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to
> rebuild
> >>> myself,
> >>> and go no luck to boot it so far.
> >>>
> >> I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which
> adds
> >> the
> >> support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with
> ACPI.
> >>
> >> 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen
> ARM
> >
> > Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some
> help for
> > Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.
> >
> > However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with
> the
> > following message:
> >
> > (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64,
> nr_cpu_ids=1
> > (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
> > (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
> > (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller
> found.
> > (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
> > (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
> > (d86) Call trace:
> > (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
> > (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> > (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
> > (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
> > (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
> > (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
> > (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
> > (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt
> controller
> > found.
> >
> > This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI
> 5.1
> > (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each
> table
> > against ACPI 5.1.
> >
>  Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is
> already
>  updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
>  One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make
> gicc->header.length
>  76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM
> ACPI
>  support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.
> 
>  Which one do you prefer?
> >>>
> >>> Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I
> would
> >>> prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
> >>> upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your
> patches).
> >>
> >> I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is
> fully
> >> supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to
> support the
> >> first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only provides
> ACPI 5.1).
> >
> > And I thought that compatibility was supposed to be ACPI's strong
> suit.
> > I mistakenly had the impression that new ACPI releases weren't
> suppose
> > to break old OSes. I take back my comment, you are right that we
> should
> > stay on 5.1 (including all the erratas, many are important for ARM).
> >
> 
> IIRC, early version of ACPI used to have some incompatibility. I will
> have to go through the ACPI spec to find the main differences between
> 5.1 and 6.0 for ARM.


Transition from 1.x to 2.0 introduced incompatibilities (I believe in RSDP
structure definition) but I thought that since then they kept everything back

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-14 Thread Julien Grall 

Hi Stefano,

On 14/09/2016 21:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:

On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:

On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:



On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Shannon,


On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:

Hi Shannon,

On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:

From: Shannon Zhao 

The design of this feature is described as below.
Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according
the
number of vcpus and gic controller.

Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space
and
passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.

At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot"
protocol
and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI
and DT
information to the Xen DomU.

Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT
tables
since it's enough now.

This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen



The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master
branch:
http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd


On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild
myself,
and go no luck to boot it so far.


I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds
the
support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.

402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM


Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for
Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.

However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
following message:

(d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
(d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
(d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
(d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
(d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
(d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
(d86) Call trace:
(d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
(d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
(d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
(d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
(d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
(d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
(d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
(d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller
found.

This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1
(see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table
against ACPI 5.1.


Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is already
updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make gicc->header.length
76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.

Which one do you prefer?


Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I would
prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your patches).


I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is fully
supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to support the
first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only provides ACPI 5.1).


And I thought that compatibility was supposed to be ACPI's strong suit.
I mistakenly had the impression that new ACPI releases weren't suppose
to break old OSes. I take back my comment, you are right that we should
stay on 5.1 (including all the erratas, many are important for ARM).



IIRC, early version of ACPI used to have some incompatibility. I will 
have to go through the ACPI spec to find the main differences between 
5.1 and 6.0 for ARM.


Assuming the newer versions are backward compatible, it might be good to 
written down somewhere (maybe a public headers) that the guest OS should 
not assume a specific version of ACPI. This would avoid to tie us on 
ACPI 5.1 and allow us to upgrade the tables on a next release of Xen.


In any case, we should be consistent accross all the ACPI tables (e.g 
version, size of the tables...) to accommodate picky OSes. For now, I 
would stay on ACPI 5.1 for safety.


Regards,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-14 Thread Stefano Stabellini 
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Julien Grall wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> > > On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> > > > > Hi Julien,
> > > > 
> > > > Hello Shannon,
> > > > 
> > > > > On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Shannon,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Shannon Zhao 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The design of this feature is described as below.
> > > > > > > Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > number of vcpus and gic controller.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot"
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI
> > > > > > > and DT
> > > > > > > information to the Xen DomU.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT
> > > > > > > tables
> > > > > > > since it's enough now.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
> > > > > > > patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
> > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master
> > > > > > > branch:
> > > > > > > http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild
> > > > > > myself,
> > > > > > and go no luck to boot it so far.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds
> > > > > the
> > > > > support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for
> > > > Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.
> > > > 
> > > > However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
> > > > following message:
> > > > 
> > > > (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
> > > > (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
> > > > (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
> > > > (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
> > > > (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
> > > > (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
> > > > (d86) Call trace:
> > > > (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
> > > > (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> > > > (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
> > > > (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
> > > > (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
> > > > (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
> > > > (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
> > > > (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller
> > > > found.
> > > > 
> > > > This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1
> > > > (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table
> > > > against ACPI 5.1.
> > > > 
> > > Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is already
> > > updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
> > > One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make gicc->header.length
> > > 76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
> > > support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.
> > > 
> > > Which one do you prefer?
> > 
> > Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I would
> > prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
> > upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your patches).
> 
> I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is fully
> supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to support the
> first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only provides ACPI 5.1).

And I thought that compatibility was supposed to be ACPI's strong suit.
I mistakenly had the impression that new ACPI releases weren't suppose
to break old OSes. I take back my comment, you are right that we should
stay on 5.1 (including all the erratas, many are important for ARM).

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-14 Thread Shannon Zhao 


On 2016/9/14 15:40, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> On 14/09/2016 08:32, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 2016/9/14 15:14, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> >> Hello,
>>> >>
>>> >> On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
 >>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>  On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> >> Hi Julien,
>> >
>> > Hello Shannon,
>> >
>>> >> On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
 >>> Hi Shannon,
 >>>
 >>> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>  From: Shannon Zhao 
> 
>  The design of this feature is described as below.
>  Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables
>  according the
>  number of vcpus and gic controller.
> 
>  Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map
>  space and
>  passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" 
>  protocol.
> 
>  At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM 
>  multiboot"
>  protocol
>  and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both 
>  ACPI
>  and DT
>  information to the Xen DomU.
> 
>  Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, 
>  DSDT
>  tables
>  since it's enough now.
> 
>  This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI 
>  support
>  patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
>  https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 
>  master
>  branch:
>  http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
 >>>
 >>> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to 
 >>> rebuild
 >>> myself,
 >>> and go no luck to boot it so far.
 >>>
>>> >> I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which 
>>> >> adds
>>> >> the
>>> >> support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.
>>> >>
>>> >> 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM
>> >
>> > Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help 
>> > for
>> > Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.
>> >
>> > However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
>> > following message:
>> >
>> > (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
>> > (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
>> > (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
>> > (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
>> > (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
>> > (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
>> > (d86) Call trace:
>> > (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
>> > (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
>> > (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
>> > (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
>> > (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
>> > (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
>> > (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
>> > (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller
>> > found.
>> >
>> > This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 
>> > 5.1
>> > (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each 
>> > table
>> > against ACPI 5.1.
>> >
>  Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is 
>  already
>  updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
>  One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make 
>  gicc->header.length
>  76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
>  support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.
> 
>  Which one do you prefer?
 >>>
 >>> Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I would
 >>> prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
 >>> upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your patches).
>>> >>
>>> >> I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is
>>> >> fully supporting ARM because a guest

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-14 Thread Julien Grall 


On 14/09/2016 08:32, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2016/9/14 15:14, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
 On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
>
> Hello Shannon,
>
>> On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Shannon,
>>>
>>> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
 From: Shannon Zhao 

 The design of this feature is described as below.
 Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables
 according the
 number of vcpus and gic controller.

 Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map
 space and
 passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.

 At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot"
 protocol
 and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI
 and DT
 information to the Xen DomU.

 Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT
 tables
 since it's enough now.

 This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
 patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
 https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen




 The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master
 branch:
 http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
>>>
>>> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild
>>> myself,
>>> and go no luck to boot it so far.
>>>
>> I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds
>> the
>> support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.
>>
>> 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM
>
> Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for
> Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.
>
> However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
> following message:
>
> (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
> (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
> (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
> (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
> (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
> (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
> (d86) Call trace:
> (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
> (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
> (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
> (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
> (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
> (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
> (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller
> found.
>
> This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1
> (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table
> against ACPI 5.1.
>
 Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is already
 updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
 One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make gicc->header.length
 76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
 support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.

 Which one do you prefer?
>>>
>>> Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I would
>>> prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
>>> upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your patches).
>>
>> I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is
>> fully supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to
>> support the first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only
>> provides ACPI 5.1).
>>
> So you prefer we should set the gicc->header.length to 76 and still use
> ACPI 5.1, right?

That would be my preference. From my understanding, the main difference
between 6.0 and 5.1 for the MADT is a field "reserved" has been added at
the end of the GICC subtable.

However, I am wondering whether the Linux check should be relaxed.
#define BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY(entry, end) 
\
(!(entry) || (unsigned long)(entry) + sizeof(*(entry)) > (end) ||   
\
 (entry)->header.length != ACPI_MADT_GICC_LENGTH)

But the definition of BAD_MADT_ENTRY is more relaxed as it only requires
to be greater than the size of the structure.

#define BAD_MADT_ENTRY(entry, end) (\
(!entry) || (unsigned long)entry + sizeof(*entry) > end ||  \
((struct acpi_subtable_header *)entry)->length < sizeof(*entry))

Any

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-14 Thread Shannon Zhao 


On 2016/9/14 15:14, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:


 On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> Hi Julien,

 Hello Shannon,

> On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Shannon,
>>
>> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>>> From: Shannon Zhao 
>>>
>>> The design of this feature is described as below.
>>> Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables
>>> according the
>>> number of vcpus and gic controller.
>>>
>>> Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map
>>> space and
>>> passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.
>>>
>>> At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot"
>>> protocol
>>> and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI
>>> and DT
>>> information to the Xen DomU.
>>>
>>> Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT
>>> tables
>>> since it's enough now.
>>>
>>> This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
>>> patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master
>>> branch:
>>> http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
>>
>> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild
>> myself,
>> and go no luck to boot it so far.
>>
> I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds
> the
> support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.
>
> 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM

 Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for
 Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.

 However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
 following message:

 (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
 (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
 (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
 (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
 (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
 (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
 (d86) Call trace:
 (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
 (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
 (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
 (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
 (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
 (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
 (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
 (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller
 found.

 This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1
 (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table
 against ACPI 5.1.

>>> Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is already
>>> updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
>>> One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make gicc->header.length
>>> 76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
>>> support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.
>>>
>>> Which one do you prefer?
>>
>> Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I would
>> prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
>> upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your patches).
> 
> I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is
> fully supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to
> support the first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only
> provides ACPI 5.1).
> 
So you prefer we should set the gicc->header.length to 76 and still use
ACPI 5.1, right?

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-14 Thread Julien Grall 

Hello,

On 14/09/2016 02:06, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:

On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:



On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Shannon,


On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:

Hi Shannon,

On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:

From: Shannon Zhao 

The design of this feature is described as below.
Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
number of vcpus and gic controller.

Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.

At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI
and DT
information to the Xen DomU.

Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT
tables
since it's enough now.

This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen



The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd


On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild myself,
and go no luck to boot it so far.


I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds the
support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.

402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM


Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for
Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.

However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
following message:

(d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
(d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
(d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
(d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
(d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
(d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
(d86) Call trace:
(d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
(d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
(d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
(d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
(d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
(d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
(d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
(d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.

This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1
(see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table
against ACPI 5.1.


Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is already
updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make gicc->header.length
76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.

Which one do you prefer?


Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I would
prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your patches).


I disagree on this, we should use the first version of ACPI that is 
fully supporting ARM because a guest operating system may choose to 
support the first one (there is a lot hardware platform out which only 
provides ACPI 5.1).


Regards,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-13 Thread Stefano Stabellini 
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> >> Hi Julien,
> > 
> > Hello Shannon,
> > 
> >> On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> >>> Hi Shannon,
> >>>
> >>> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>  From: Shannon Zhao 
> 
>  The design of this feature is described as below.
>  Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
>  number of vcpus and gic controller.
> 
>  Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
>  passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.
> 
>  At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
>  and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI
>  and DT
>  information to the Xen DomU.
> 
>  Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT
>  tables
>  since it's enough now.
> 
>  This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
>  patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
>  https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
> 
> 
> 
>  The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
>  http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
> >>>
> >>> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild myself,
> >>> and go no luck to boot it so far.
> >>>
> >> I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds the
> >> support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.
> >>
> >> 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM
> > 
> > Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for
> > Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.
> > 
> > However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
> > following message:
> > 
> > (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
> > (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
> > (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
> > (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
> > (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
> > (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
> > (d86) Call trace:
> > (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
> > (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> > (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
> > (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
> > (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
> > (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
> > (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
> > (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
> > 
> > This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1
> > (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table
> > against ACPI 5.1.
> > 
> Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is already
> updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
> One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make gicc->header.length
> 76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
> support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.
> 
> Which one do you prefer?

Certainly the versions of all tables need to be consistent. I would
prefer to have ACPI 6.0 but 5.1 is acceptable too (especially if
upgrading to 6.0 causes a large amount of changes to your patches).

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-13 Thread Shannon Zhao 


On 2016/9/13 23:17, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> Hi Julien,
> 
> Hello Shannon,
> 
>> On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi Shannon,
>>>
>>> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
 From: Shannon Zhao 

 The design of this feature is described as below.
 Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
 number of vcpus and gic controller.

 Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
 passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.

 At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
 and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI
 and DT
 information to the Xen DomU.

 Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT
 tables
 since it's enough now.

 This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
 patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
 https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen



 The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
 http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
>>>
>>> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild myself,
>>> and go no luck to boot it so far.
>>>
>> I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds the
>> support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.
>>
>> 402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM
> 
> Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for
> Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.
> 
> However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the
> following message:
> 
> (d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
> (d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
> (d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
> (d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
> (d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
> (d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
> (d86) Call trace:
> (d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
> (d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> (d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
> (d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
> (d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
> (d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
> (d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
> (d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
> 
> This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1
> (see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table
> against ACPI 5.1.
> 
Oops. The reason is that acpi_madt_generic_interrupt in Xen is already
updated to ACPI 6.0 and the length is 80 not 76 of ACPI 5.1.
One solution is that we still use ACPI 5.1 and make gicc->header.length
76. Other one is that we update to ACPI 6.0 since the Xen ARM ACPI
support in Linux was introduced after ACPI 6.0.

Which one do you prefer?

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-13 Thread Julien Grall 



On 13/09/16 14:06, Shannon Zhao wrote:

Hi Julien,


Hello Shannon,


On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:

Hi Shannon,

On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:

From: Shannon Zhao 

The design of this feature is described as below.
Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
number of vcpus and gic controller.

Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.

At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI and DT
information to the Xen DomU.

Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT tables
since it's enough now.

This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen


The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd


On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild myself,
and go no luck to boot it so far.


I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds the
support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.

402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM


Thanks, the commit does not build on my platform. After some help for 
Ard I managed to boot UEFI with the patch [1] applied.


However Linux does not boot when passing acpi=on and abort with the 
following message:


(d86) 6RCU: Adjusting geometry for rcu_fanout_leaf=64, nr_cpu_ids=1
(d86) 6NR_IRQS:64 nr_irqs:64 0
(d86) 3No valid GICC entries exist
(d86) 0Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
(d86) dCPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.8.0-rc6+ #420
(d86) dHardware name: XENVM-4.8 (DT)
(d86) Call trace:
(d86) [] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
(d86) [] show_stack+0x14/0x20
(d86) [] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
(d86) [] panic+0x10c/0x250
(d86) [] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
(d86) [] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
(d86) [] __primary_switched+0x30/0x74
(d86) 0---[ end Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.

This is because the header.length for GICC is not valid for ACPI 5.1 
(see BAD_MADT_GICC_ENTRY). So please check all the size of each table 
against ACPI 5.1.


My configuration is Linux 4.8-rc6 on Juno r2 (e.g GICv2 interrupt 
controller).


Regards,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-13 Thread Shannon Zhao 
Hi Julien,

On 2016/9/13 19:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Shannon,
> 
> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> From: Shannon Zhao 
>>
>> The design of this feature is described as below.
>> Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
>> number of vcpus and gic controller.
>>
>> Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
>> passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.
>>
>> At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
>> and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI and DT
>> information to the Xen DomU.
>>
>> Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT tables
>> since it's enough now.
>>
>> This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
>> patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
>>
>>
>> The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
>> http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
> 
> On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild myself,
> and go no luck to boot it so far.
> 
I forgot the exact commit. But I just tried below commit which adds the
support to edk2 and the guest can boot up successfully with ACPI.

402dde6 ArmVirtPkg/ArmVirtXen: Add ACPI support for Virt Xen ARM

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-13 Thread Julien Grall 

Hi Shannon,

On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:

From: Shannon Zhao 

The design of this feature is described as below.
Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
number of vcpus and gic controller.

Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.

At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI and DT
information to the Xen DomU.

Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT tables
since it's enough now.

This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen

The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd


On which commit this EFI binary is based? I am trying to rebuild myself, 
and go no luck to boot it so far.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-13 Thread Shannon Zhao 


On 2016/9/12 23:22, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Shannon,
> 
> On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> From: Shannon Zhao 
>>
>> The design of this feature is described as below.
>> Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
>> number of vcpus and gic controller.
>>
>> Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
>> passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.
>>
>> At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
>> and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI and DT
>> information to the Xen DomU.
>>
>> Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT tables
>> since it's enough now.
>>
>> This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
>> patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen
>>
>>
>> The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
>> http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd
>>
>> This series can be fetched from:
>> https://git.linaro.org/people/shannon.zhao/xen.git  domu_acpi_v5
> 
> This branch is based on a fairly out of date xen. Do you have a branch
> rebased on the latest upstream + Boris ACPI v3?
> 
You can fetch the updated branch from:
https://git.linaro.org/people/shannon.zhao/xen.git  domu_acpi_v5_new

Thanks,
-- 
Shannon


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-12 Thread Julien Grall 

Hi Shannon,

On 02/09/16 03:55, Shannon Zhao wrote:

From: Shannon Zhao 

The design of this feature is described as below.
Firstly, the toolstack (libxl) generates the ACPI tables according the
number of vcpus and gic controller.

Then, it copies these ACPI tables to DomU non-RAM memory map space and
passes them to UEFI firmware through the "ARM multiboot" protocol.

At last, UEFI gets the ACPI tables through the "ARM multiboot" protocol
and installs these tables like the usual way and passes both ACPI and DT
information to the Xen DomU.

Currently libxl only generates RSDP, XSDT, GTDT, MADT, FADT, DSDT tables
since it's enough now.

This has been tested using guest kernel with the Dom0 ACPI support
patches which could be fetched from linux master or:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mfleming/efi.git/log/?h=efi/arm-xen

The UEFI binary could be fetched from or built from edk2 master branch:
http://people.linaro.org/~shannon.zhao/DomU_ACPI/XEN_EFI.fd

This series can be fetched from:
https://git.linaro.org/people/shannon.zhao/xen.git  domu_acpi_v5


This branch is based on a fairly out of date xen. Do you have a branch 
rebased on the latest upstream + Boris ACPI v3?


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/16] Xen ARM DomU ACPI support

2016-09-02 Thread Wei Liu 
Thanks for posting.

I go over all the patches and I think this series is in good shape. I
will defer most of the table construction code to ARM maintainers.

Wei.

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel