Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-24 Thread Tomasz Nowicki 

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 24.01.2014 13:53, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

Hi Hanjun,

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:09:40AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

On 2014?01?23? 23:56, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]


diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include 
#include 
#include 
+#include 

#include 
#include 
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)

arm64_memblock_init();

+ /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+ acpi_boot_table_init();
+ early_acpi_boot_init();
+ acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();


Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?

This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT
table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA
initialization and then paging_init().


Thank you for the explanation. I still have some questions:

1) What are the other reasons ?
If we agreed that we need SRAT parsing before paging_init() the second 
reason is all implications related to that. I mean if we want to make 
ACPI tables parseable before paging_init(), we need early_ioremap 
mechanism and __acpi_map_table() fixes. In that case, IMHO, it is better 
to please it in the right place now. early_ioremap is object of UEFI 
support patch set.

2) NUMA is not supported at the moment and I reckon SRAT needs updating
since the only way to associate a CPU to a memory node is through
a local APIC id that is non-existent on ARM and at least deserves a
new entry.

Right, that requires further work on SRAT.


I am still not sure that providing a hook for parsing the ACPI tables before
paging_init() is the main focus at the moment, it is probably best, as we've
mentioned manifold times, to make sure that the infrastructure to detect
ACPI vs DT at run-time is in place in the kernel and allows us to boot
either with ACPI or DT, in a mutual exclusive way (same binary kernel
supporting both, runtime detection/decision on what data to use, ACPI tables
vs DT nodes, detection made once for all and NOT on a per property basis).

I will have a look at SRAT and how it is used on x86, and get back to you on
this.

[...]


+ * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
+ * called from setup_arch(), always.
+ * 1. checksums all tables
+ * 2. enumerates lapics
+ * 3. enumerates io-apics
+ *
+ * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
+ * other side effects.
+ */
+void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
+ */
+ if (acpi_table_init()) {
+ disable_acpi();
+ return;
+ }
+}
+
+int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ early_acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}


Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?


Thanks for pointing this out. I can merge acpi_boot_table_init() and
early_acpi_boot_init() together, but can not merge early_acpi_boot_init()
and acpi_boot_init() together.

early_acpi_boot_init() and acpi_boot_init() was separated intentionally for
memory hotplug reasons. memory allocated in this stage can not be migrated
and cause memory hot-remove failed, in order to keep memory allocated
at base node (general NUMA node 0 in the system) at boot stage, we should
parse SRAT first before CPU is enumerated, does this make sense to you?


Are you parsing the SRAT in this series to get memory info or memory is
still initialized by DT even when system is supposed to be booted with ACPI
(ie there is a valid ACPI root table ?)

I have a hunch the latter is what's happening (and that's wrong, because
memory information when kernel is booted through ACPI must be retrieved
from UEFI - at least that's what has been defined), so I still see an early
hook to initialize ACPI tables before paging_init() that has no use as the
current patchset stands, please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, currently memory is initialized by DT but getting memory map from 
UEFI is the matter of time (pending upstream

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-24 Thread Lorenzo Pieralisi 
Hi Hanjun,

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:09:40AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014?01?23? 23:56, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > Hi Lorenzo,
> >
> > W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:
> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> >>> index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> >>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
> >>> #include 
> >>> #include 
> >>> #include 
> >>> +#include 
> >>>
> >>> #include 
> >>> #include 
> >>> @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> >>>
> >>> arm64_memblock_init();
> >>>
> >>> + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
> >>> + acpi_boot_table_init();
> >>> + early_acpi_boot_init();
> >>> + acpi_boot_init();
> >>> +
> >>> paging_init();
> >>
> >> Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
> >> paging_init() ?
> > This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT 
> > table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA 
> > initialization and then paging_init().

Thank you for the explanation. I still have some questions:

1) What are the other reasons ?
2) NUMA is not supported at the moment and I reckon SRAT needs updating
   since the only way to associate a CPU to a memory node is through
   a local APIC id that is non-existent on ARM and at least deserves a
   new entry.

I am still not sure that providing a hook for parsing the ACPI tables before
paging_init() is the main focus at the moment, it is probably best, as we've
mentioned manifold times, to make sure that the infrastructure to detect
ACPI vs DT at run-time is in place in the kernel and allows us to boot
either with ACPI or DT, in a mutual exclusive way (same binary kernel
supporting both, runtime detection/decision on what data to use, ACPI tables
vs DT nodes, detection made once for all and NOT on a per property basis).

I will have a look at SRAT and how it is used on x86, and get back to you on
this.

[...]

> >>> + * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
> >>> + * called from setup_arch(), always.
> >>> + * 1. checksums all tables
> >>> + * 2. enumerates lapics
> >>> + * 3. enumerates io-apics
> >>> + *
> >>> + * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
> >>> + * other side effects.
> >>> + */
> >>> +void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * If acpi_disabled, bail out
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (acpi_disabled)
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (acpi_table_init()) {
> >>> + disable_acpi();
> >>> + return;
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * If acpi_disabled, bail out
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (acpi_disabled)
> >>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
> >>> + */
> >>> + early_acpi_process_madt();
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * If acpi_disabled, bail out
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (acpi_disabled)
> >>> + return -ENODEV;
> >>> +
> >>> + acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
> >>> + */
> >>> + acpi_process_madt();
> >>> +
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
> >> returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
> >> why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
> >> twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
> >> prevents you from merging the two together ?
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. I can merge acpi_boot_table_init() and
> early_acpi_boot_init() together, but can not merge early_acpi_boot_init()
> and acpi_boot_init() together.
> 
> early_acpi_boot_init() and acpi_boot_init() was separated intentionally for
> memory hotplug reasons. memory allocated in this stage can not be migrated
> and cause memory hot-remove failed, in order to keep memory allocated
> at base node (general NUMA node 0 in the system) at boot stage, we should
> parse SRAT first before CPU is enumerated, does this make sense to you?

Are you parsing the SRAT in this series to get memory info or memory is
still initialized by DT even when system is supposed to be booted with ACPI
(ie there is a valid ACPI root table ?)

I have a hunch the latter is what's happening (and that's wrong, because
memory information when kernel is booted through ACPI must be retrieved
from UEFI - at least that's what has been defined), so I still see an early
hook to initialize ACPI tables before paging_init() that has no use as the
current patchset stands, please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you,
Lorenzo

--
To

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-24 Thread Hanjun Guo 

On 2014年01月23日 23:56, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]


diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include 
#include 
#include 
+#include 

#include 
#include 
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)

arm64_memblock_init();

+ /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+ acpi_boot_table_init();
+ early_acpi_boot_init();
+ acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();


Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?
This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT 
table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA 
initialization and then paging_init().


Yes, I agree, thanks for Tomasz's clarification.



[...]


+/*
+ * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so 
early_ioremap()

+ * or early_memremap() should be called here.


Again, why is this needed ? What's needed before paging_init() from 
ACPI ?


[...]


+/*
+ * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
+ * called from setup_arch(), always.
+ * 1. checksums all tables
+ * 2. enumerates lapics
+ * 3. enumerates io-apics
+ *
+ * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
+ * other side effects.
+ */
+void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
+ */
+ if (acpi_table_init()) {
+ disable_acpi();
+ return;
+ }
+}
+
+int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ early_acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}


Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?


Thanks for pointing this out. I can merge acpi_boot_table_init() and
early_acpi_boot_init() together, but can not merge early_acpi_boot_init()
and acpi_boot_init() together.

early_acpi_boot_init() and acpi_boot_init() was separated intentionally for
memory hotplug reasons. memory allocated in this stage can not be migrated
and cause memory hot-remove failed, in order to keep memory allocated
at base node (general NUMA node 0 in the system) at boot stage, we should
parse SRAT first before CPU is enumerated, does this make sense to you?

Thanks
Hanjun

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

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-24 Thread Hanjun Guo 

On 2014年01月23日 23:56, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]


diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include linux/memblock.h
#include linux/of_fdt.h
#include linux/of_platform.h
+#include linux/acpi.h

#include asm/cputype.h
#include asm/elf.h
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)

arm64_memblock_init();

+ /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+ acpi_boot_table_init();
+ early_acpi_boot_init();
+ acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();


Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?
This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT 
table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA 
initialization and then paging_init().


Yes, I agree, thanks for Tomasz's clarification.



[...]


+/*
+ * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so 
early_ioremap()

+ * or early_memremap() should be called here.


Again, why is this needed ? What's needed before paging_init() from 
ACPI ?


[...]


+/*
+ * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
+ * called from setup_arch(), always.
+ * 1. checksums all tables
+ * 2. enumerates lapics
+ * 3. enumerates io-apics
+ *
+ * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
+ * other side effects.
+ */
+void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
+ */
+ if (acpi_table_init()) {
+ disable_acpi();
+ return;
+ }
+}
+
+int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ early_acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}


Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?


Thanks for pointing this out. I can merge acpi_boot_table_init() and
early_acpi_boot_init() together, but can not merge early_acpi_boot_init()
and acpi_boot_init() together.

early_acpi_boot_init() and acpi_boot_init() was separated intentionally for
memory hotplug reasons. memory allocated in this stage can not be migrated
and cause memory hot-remove failed, in order to keep memory allocated
at base node (general NUMA node 0 in the system) at boot stage, we should
parse SRAT first before CPU is enumerated, does this make sense to you?

Thanks
Hanjun

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

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-24 Thread Lorenzo Pieralisi 
Hi Hanjun,

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:09:40AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
 On 2014?01?23? 23:56, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
  Hi Lorenzo,
 
  W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:
  On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
 
  [...]
 
  diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
  index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
  --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
  +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
  @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
  #include linux/memblock.h
  #include linux/of_fdt.h
  #include linux/of_platform.h
  +#include linux/acpi.h
 
  #include asm/cputype.h
  #include asm/elf.h
  @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 
  arm64_memblock_init();
 
  + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
  + acpi_boot_table_init();
  + early_acpi_boot_init();
  + acpi_boot_init();
  +
  paging_init();
 
  Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
  paging_init() ?
  This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT 
  table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA 
  initialization and then paging_init().

Thank you for the explanation. I still have some questions:

1) What are the other reasons ?
2) NUMA is not supported at the moment and I reckon SRAT needs updating
   since the only way to associate a CPU to a memory node is through
   a local APIC id that is non-existent on ARM and at least deserves a
   new entry.

I am still not sure that providing a hook for parsing the ACPI tables before
paging_init() is the main focus at the moment, it is probably best, as we've
mentioned manifold times, to make sure that the infrastructure to detect
ACPI vs DT at run-time is in place in the kernel and allows us to boot
either with ACPI or DT, in a mutual exclusive way (same binary kernel
supporting both, runtime detection/decision on what data to use, ACPI tables
vs DT nodes, detection made once for all and NOT on a per property basis).

I will have a look at SRAT and how it is used on x86, and get back to you on
this.

[...]

  + * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
  + * called from setup_arch(), always.
  + * 1. checksums all tables
  + * 2. enumerates lapics
  + * 3. enumerates io-apics
  + *
  + * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
  + * other side effects.
  + */
  +void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
  +{
  + /*
  + * If acpi_disabled, bail out
  + */
  + if (acpi_disabled)
  + return;
  +
  + /*
  + * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
  + */
  + if (acpi_table_init()) {
  + disable_acpi();
  + return;
  + }
  +}
  +
  +int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
  +{
  + /*
  + * If acpi_disabled, bail out
  + */
  + if (acpi_disabled)
  + return -ENODEV;
  +
  + /*
  + * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
  + */
  + early_acpi_process_madt();
  +
  + return 0;
  +}
  +
  +int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
  +{
  + /*
  + * If acpi_disabled, bail out
  + */
  + if (acpi_disabled)
  + return -ENODEV;
  +
  + acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
  +
  + /*
  + * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
  + */
  + acpi_process_madt();
  +
  + return 0;
  +}
 
  Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
  returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
  why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
  twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
  prevents you from merging the two together ?
 
 Thanks for pointing this out. I can merge acpi_boot_table_init() and
 early_acpi_boot_init() together, but can not merge early_acpi_boot_init()
 and acpi_boot_init() together.
 
 early_acpi_boot_init() and acpi_boot_init() was separated intentionally for
 memory hotplug reasons. memory allocated in this stage can not be migrated
 and cause memory hot-remove failed, in order to keep memory allocated
 at base node (general NUMA node 0 in the system) at boot stage, we should
 parse SRAT first before CPU is enumerated, does this make sense to you?

Are you parsing the SRAT in this series to get memory info or memory is
still initialized by DT even when system is supposed to be booted with ACPI
(ie there is a valid ACPI root table ?)

I have a hunch the latter is what's happening (and that's wrong, because
memory information when kernel is booted through ACPI must be retrieved
from UEFI - at least that's what has been defined), so I still see an early
hook to initialize ACPI tables before paging_init() that has no use as the
current patchset stands, please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you,
Lorenzo

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

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-24 Thread Tomasz Nowicki 

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 24.01.2014 13:53, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

Hi Hanjun,

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 09:09:40AM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

On 2014?01?23? 23:56, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]


diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include linux/memblock.h
#include linux/of_fdt.h
#include linux/of_platform.h
+#include linux/acpi.h

#include asm/cputype.h
#include asm/elf.h
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)

arm64_memblock_init();

+ /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+ acpi_boot_table_init();
+ early_acpi_boot_init();
+ acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();


Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?

This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT
table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA
initialization and then paging_init().


Thank you for the explanation. I still have some questions:

1) What are the other reasons ?
If we agreed that we need SRAT parsing before paging_init() the second 
reason is all implications related to that. I mean if we want to make 
ACPI tables parseable before paging_init(), we need early_ioremap 
mechanism and __acpi_map_table() fixes. In that case, IMHO, it is better 
to please it in the right place now. early_ioremap is object of UEFI 
support patch set.

2) NUMA is not supported at the moment and I reckon SRAT needs updating
since the only way to associate a CPU to a memory node is through
a local APIC id that is non-existent on ARM and at least deserves a
new entry.

Right, that requires further work on SRAT.


I am still not sure that providing a hook for parsing the ACPI tables before
paging_init() is the main focus at the moment, it is probably best, as we've
mentioned manifold times, to make sure that the infrastructure to detect
ACPI vs DT at run-time is in place in the kernel and allows us to boot
either with ACPI or DT, in a mutual exclusive way (same binary kernel
supporting both, runtime detection/decision on what data to use, ACPI tables
vs DT nodes, detection made once for all and NOT on a per property basis).

I will have a look at SRAT and how it is used on x86, and get back to you on
this.

[...]


+ * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
+ * called from setup_arch(), always.
+ * 1. checksums all tables
+ * 2. enumerates lapics
+ * 3. enumerates io-apics
+ *
+ * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
+ * other side effects.
+ */
+void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
+ */
+ if (acpi_table_init()) {
+ disable_acpi();
+ return;
+ }
+}
+
+int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ early_acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * If acpi_disabled, bail out
+ */
+ if (acpi_disabled)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
+ acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
+
+ /*
+ * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+ */
+ acpi_process_madt();
+
+ return 0;
+}


Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?


Thanks for pointing this out. I can merge acpi_boot_table_init() and
early_acpi_boot_init() together, but can not merge early_acpi_boot_init()
and acpi_boot_init() together.

early_acpi_boot_init() and acpi_boot_init() was separated intentionally for
memory hotplug reasons. memory allocated in this stage can not be migrated
and cause memory hot-remove failed, in order to keep memory allocated
at base node (general NUMA node 0 in the system) at boot stage, we should
parse SRAT first before CPU is enumerated, does this make sense to you?


Are you parsing the SRAT in this series to get memory info or memory is
still initialized by DT even when system is supposed to be booted with ACPI
(ie there is a valid ACPI root table ?)

I have a hunch the latter is what's happening (and that's wrong, because
memory information when kernel is booted through ACPI must be retrieved
from UEFI - at least that's what has been defined), so I still see an early
hook to initialize ACPI tables before paging_init() that has no use as the
current patchset stands, please correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, currently memory is initialized by

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-23 Thread Tomasz Nowicki 

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]


diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
  #include 
  #include 
  #include 
+#include 

  #include 
  #include 
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)

arm64_memblock_init();

+   /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+   acpi_boot_table_init();
+   early_acpi_boot_init();
+   acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();


Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?
This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT 
table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA 
initialization and then paging_init().


Regards,
Tomasz


[...]


+/*
+ * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
+ * or early_memremap() should be called here.


Again, why is this needed ? What's needed before paging_init() from ACPI ?

[...]


+/*
+ * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
+ *  called from setup_arch(), always.
+ * 1. checksums all tables
+ * 2. enumerates lapics
+ * 3. enumerates io-apics
+ *
+ * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
+ * other side effects.
+ */
+void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
+{
+   /*
+* If acpi_disabled, bail out
+*/
+   if (acpi_disabled)
+   return;
+
+   /*
+* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
+*/
+   if (acpi_table_init()) {
+   disable_acpi();
+   return;
+   }
+}
+
+int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+   /*
+* If acpi_disabled, bail out
+*/
+   if (acpi_disabled)
+   return -ENODEV;
+
+   /*
+* Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+*/
+   early_acpi_process_madt();
+
+   return 0;
+}
+
+int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+   /*
+* If acpi_disabled, bail out
+*/
+   if (acpi_disabled)
+   return -ENODEV;
+
+   acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
+
+   /*
+* Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+*/
+   acpi_process_madt();
+
+   return 0;
+}


Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?

Thanks,
Lorenzo


___
Linaro-acpi mailing list
linaro-a...@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-acpi


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

Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-23 Thread Tomasz Nowicki 

Hi Lorenzo,

W dniu 22.01.2014 12:54, Lorenzo Pieralisi pisze:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]


diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
  #include linux/memblock.h
  #include linux/of_fdt.h
  #include linux/of_platform.h
+#include linux/acpi.h

  #include asm/cputype.h
  #include asm/elf.h
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)

arm64_memblock_init();

+   /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+   acpi_boot_table_init();
+   early_acpi_boot_init();
+   acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();


Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?
This is for future usage and because of couple of reasons. Mainly SRAT 
table parsing should be done (before paging_init()) for proper NUMA 
initialization and then paging_init().


Regards,
Tomasz


[...]


+/*
+ * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
+ * or early_memremap() should be called here.


Again, why is this needed ? What's needed before paging_init() from ACPI ?

[...]


+/*
+ * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
+ *  called from setup_arch(), always.
+ * 1. checksums all tables
+ * 2. enumerates lapics
+ * 3. enumerates io-apics
+ *
+ * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
+ * other side effects.
+ */
+void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
+{
+   /*
+* If acpi_disabled, bail out
+*/
+   if (acpi_disabled)
+   return;
+
+   /*
+* Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
+*/
+   if (acpi_table_init()) {
+   disable_acpi();
+   return;
+   }
+}
+
+int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+   /*
+* If acpi_disabled, bail out
+*/
+   if (acpi_disabled)
+   return -ENODEV;
+
+   /*
+* Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+*/
+   early_acpi_process_madt();
+
+   return 0;
+}
+
+int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
+{
+   /*
+* If acpi_disabled, bail out
+*/
+   if (acpi_disabled)
+   return -ENODEV;
+
+   acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
+
+   /*
+* Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
+*/
+   acpi_process_madt();
+
+   return 0;
+}


Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?

Thanks,
Lorenzo


___
Linaro-acpi mailing list
linaro-a...@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-acpi


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

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-22 Thread Lorenzo Pieralisi 
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
>  #include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
> +#include 
>  
>  #include 
>  #include 
> @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>  
>   arm64_memblock_init();
>  
> + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
> + acpi_boot_table_init();
> + early_acpi_boot_init();
> + acpi_boot_init();
> +
>   paging_init();

Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?

[...]

> +/*
> + * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
> + * or early_memremap() should be called here.

Again, why is this needed ? What's needed before paging_init() from ACPI ?

[...]

> +/*
> + * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
> + *  called from setup_arch(), always.
> + *   1. checksums all tables
> + *   2. enumerates lapics
> + *   3. enumerates io-apics
> + *
> + * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
> + * other side effects.
> + */
> +void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
> +{
> + /*
> +  * If acpi_disabled, bail out
> +  */
> + if (acpi_disabled)
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> +  * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
> +  */
> + if (acpi_table_init()) {
> + disable_acpi();
> + return;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
> +{
> + /*
> +  * If acpi_disabled, bail out
> +  */
> + if (acpi_disabled)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + /*
> +  * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
> +  */
> + early_acpi_process_madt();
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
> +{
> + /*
> +  * If acpi_disabled, bail out
> +  */
> + if (acpi_disabled)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
> +
> + /*
> +  * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
> +  */
> + acpi_process_madt();
> +
> + return 0;
> +}

Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?

Thanks,
Lorenzo

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

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-22 Thread Lorenzo Pieralisi 
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]

 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
  #include linux/memblock.h
  #include linux/of_fdt.h
  #include linux/of_platform.h
 +#include linux/acpi.h
  
  #include asm/cputype.h
  #include asm/elf.h
 @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
  
   arm64_memblock_init();
  
 + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
 + acpi_boot_table_init();
 + early_acpi_boot_init();
 + acpi_boot_init();
 +
   paging_init();

Can I ask you please why we need to parse ACPI tables before
paging_init() ?

[...]

 +/*
 + * __acpi_map_table() will be called before page_init(), so early_ioremap()
 + * or early_memremap() should be called here.

Again, why is this needed ? What's needed before paging_init() from ACPI ?

[...]

 +/*
 + * acpi_boot_table_init() and acpi_boot_init()
 + *  called from setup_arch(), always.
 + *   1. checksums all tables
 + *   2. enumerates lapics
 + *   3. enumerates io-apics
 + *
 + * acpi_table_init() is separated to allow reading SRAT without
 + * other side effects.
 + */
 +void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
 +{
 + /*
 +  * If acpi_disabled, bail out
 +  */
 + if (acpi_disabled)
 + return;
 +
 + /*
 +  * Initialize the ACPI boot-time table parser.
 +  */
 + if (acpi_table_init()) {
 + disable_acpi();
 + return;
 + }
 +}
 +
 +int __init early_acpi_boot_init(void)
 +{
 + /*
 +  * If acpi_disabled, bail out
 +  */
 + if (acpi_disabled)
 + return -ENODEV;
 +
 + /*
 +  * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
 +  */
 + early_acpi_process_madt();
 +
 + return 0;
 +}
 +
 +int __init acpi_boot_init(void)
 +{
 + /*
 +  * If acpi_disabled, bail out
 +  */
 + if (acpi_disabled)
 + return -ENODEV;
 +
 + acpi_table_parse(ACPI_SIG_FADT, acpi_parse_fadt);
 +
 + /*
 +  * Process the Multiple APIC Description Table (MADT), if present
 +  */
 + acpi_process_madt();
 +
 + return 0;
 +}

Well, apart from having three init calls, one returning void and two
returning proper values, do not understand why, and do not understand
why we need three calls in the first place...why should we process MADT
twice in two separate calls ? What is supposed to change in between that
prevents you from merging the two together ?

Thanks,
Lorenzo

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

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-20 Thread Hanjun Guo 
On 2014-1-18 0:56, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 17/01/14 12:24, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
>> we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone 
>> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory 
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo 
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |   57 +++
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c |6 ++
>>  drivers/acpi/Makefile |2 +
>>  drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile|1 +
>>  drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c  |  209 
>> +
>>  5 files changed, 275 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> index cf19dc6..908d71b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> @@ -19,6 +19,43 @@
>>  #ifndef _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
>>  #define _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
>>  
>> +#include 
>> +
>> +#include 
>> +
>> +#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64s64
>> +#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64   u64
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Calling conventions:
>> + *
>> + * ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE- Interfaces to host OS (handlers, threads)
>> + * ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE  - External ACPI interfaces
>> + * ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE  - Internal ACPI interfaces
>> + * ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE  - Internal variable-parameter list interfaces
>> + */
>> +#define ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE
>> +#define ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE
>> +#define ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE
>> +#define ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE
>> +
>> +/* Asm macros */
>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() flush_cache_all()
>> +
>> +/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
>> +#ifdef  CONFIG_ACPI
>> +extern int acpi_disabled;
>> +extern int acpi_noirq;
>> +extern int acpi_pci_disabled;
>> +extern int acpi_strict;
>> +
>> +static inline void disable_acpi(void)
>> +{
>> +acpi_disabled = 1;
>> +acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
>> +acpi_noirq = 1;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline bool arch_has_acpi_pdc(void)
>>  {
>>  return false;   /* always false for now */
>> @@ -29,4 +66,24 @@ static inline void arch_acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 *buf)
>>  return;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline void acpi_noirq_set(void) { acpi_noirq = 1; }
>> +static inline void acpi_disable_pci(void)
>> +{
>> +acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
>> +acpi_noirq_set();
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* FIXME: this function should be moved to topology.h when it's ready */
>> +void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot);
>> +
>> +/* temperally define -1 to make acpi core compilerable */
>> +#define cpu_physical_id(cpu) -1
>> +
> 
> I assume `cpu` here is logical cpu id in which case you can define it to be 
> same
> as cpu_logical_map ?

Yes. it is about the hardware id of CPU and may refer to MPIDR in ARM/ARM64.

Thanks
Hanjun

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

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-20 Thread Hanjun Guo 
On 2014-1-18 0:56, Sudeep Holla wrote:
 On 17/01/14 12:24, Hanjun Guo wrote:
 Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
 we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.

 Signed-off-by: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
 Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory graeme.greg...@linaro.org
 Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org
 ---
  arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |   57 +++
  arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c |6 ++
  drivers/acpi/Makefile |2 +
  drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile|1 +
  drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c  |  209 
 +
  5 files changed, 275 insertions(+)
  create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
  create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c

 diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
 index cf19dc6..908d71b 100644
 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
 +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
 @@ -19,6 +19,43 @@
  #ifndef _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
  #define _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
  
 +#include asm/cacheflush.h
 +
 +#include linux/init.h
 +
 +#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64s64
 +#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64   u64
 +
 +/*
 + * Calling conventions:
 + *
 + * ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE- Interfaces to host OS (handlers, threads)
 + * ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE  - External ACPI interfaces
 + * ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE  - Internal ACPI interfaces
 + * ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE  - Internal variable-parameter list interfaces
 + */
 +#define ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE
 +#define ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE
 +#define ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE
 +#define ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE
 +
 +/* Asm macros */
 +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() flush_cache_all()
 +
 +/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
 +#ifdef  CONFIG_ACPI
 +extern int acpi_disabled;
 +extern int acpi_noirq;
 +extern int acpi_pci_disabled;
 +extern int acpi_strict;
 +
 +static inline void disable_acpi(void)
 +{
 +acpi_disabled = 1;
 +acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
 +acpi_noirq = 1;
 +}
 +
  static inline bool arch_has_acpi_pdc(void)
  {
  return false;   /* always false for now */
 @@ -29,4 +66,24 @@ static inline void arch_acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 *buf)
  return;
  }
  
 +static inline void acpi_noirq_set(void) { acpi_noirq = 1; }
 +static inline void acpi_disable_pci(void)
 +{
 +acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
 +acpi_noirq_set();
 +}
 +
 +/* FIXME: this function should be moved to topology.h when it's ready */
 +void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot);
 +
 +/* temperally define -1 to make acpi core compilerable */
 +#define cpu_physical_id(cpu) -1
 +
 
 I assume `cpu` here is logical cpu id in which case you can define it to be 
 same
 as cpu_logical_map ?

Yes. it is about the hardware id of CPU and may refer to MPIDR in ARM/ARM64.

Thanks
Hanjun

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

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-17 Thread Hanjun Guo 
On 2014-1-17 22:12, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
>> we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone 
>> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory 
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo 
> 
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
>>  #include 
>>  #include 
>>  #include 
>> +#include 
>>  
>>  #include 
>>  #include 
>> @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>>  
>>  arm64_memblock_init();
>>  
>> +/* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
>> +acpi_boot_table_init();
>> +early_acpi_boot_init();
>> +acpi_boot_init();
> 
> Do we really need *three* back-to-back calls for ACPI to initialise?

Sorry, my colleague Graeme had integrate them as one function but I
forgot to merge them in this patch, my bad, will update it in next
version.

Thanks
Hanjun

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

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-17 Thread Will Deacon 
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
> we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Al Stone 
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory 
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo 

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
>  #include 
>  #include 
>  #include 
> +#include 
>  
>  #include 
>  #include 
> @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
>  
>   arm64_memblock_init();
>  
> + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
> + acpi_boot_table_init();
> + early_acpi_boot_init();
> + acpi_boot_init();

Do we really need *three* back-to-back calls for ACPI to initialise?

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

[PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-17 Thread Hanjun Guo 
Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.

Signed-off-by: Al Stone 
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory 
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo 
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |   57 +++
 arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c |6 ++
 drivers/acpi/Makefile |2 +
 drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile|1 +
 drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c  |  209 +
 5 files changed, 275 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
 create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index cf19dc6..908d71b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -19,6 +19,43 @@
 #ifndef _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
 #define _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
 
+#include 
+
+#include 
+
+#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64   s64
+#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64  u64
+
+/*
+ * Calling conventions:
+ *
+ * ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE- Interfaces to host OS (handlers, threads)
+ * ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE  - External ACPI interfaces
+ * ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE  - Internal ACPI interfaces
+ * ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE  - Internal variable-parameter list interfaces
+ */
+#define ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE
+#define ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE
+#define ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE
+#define ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE
+
+/* Asm macros */
+#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() flush_cache_all()
+
+/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+extern int acpi_disabled;
+extern int acpi_noirq;
+extern int acpi_pci_disabled;
+extern int acpi_strict;
+
+static inline void disable_acpi(void)
+{
+   acpi_disabled = 1;
+   acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
+   acpi_noirq = 1;
+}
+
 static inline bool arch_has_acpi_pdc(void)
 {
return false;   /* always false for now */
@@ -29,4 +66,24 @@ static inline void arch_acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 *buf)
return;
 }
 
+static inline void acpi_noirq_set(void) { acpi_noirq = 1; }
+static inline void acpi_disable_pci(void)
+{
+   acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
+   acpi_noirq_set();
+}
+
+/* FIXME: this function should be moved to topology.h when it's ready */
+void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot);
+
+/* temperally define -1 to make acpi core compilerable */
+#define cpu_physical_id(cpu) -1
+
+#else  /* !CONFIG_ACPI */
+#define acpi_disabled 1/* ACPI sometimes enabled on ARM */
+#define acpi_noirq 1   /* ACPI sometimes enabled on ARM */
+#define acpi_pci_disabled 1/* ACPI PCI sometimes enabled on ARM */
+#define acpi_strict 1  /* no ACPI spec workarounds on ARM */
+#endif
+
 #endif /*_ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H*/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
 #include 
 #include 
 #include 
+#include 
 
 #include 
 #include 
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 
arm64_memblock_init();
 
+   /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+   acpi_boot_table_init();
+   early_acpi_boot_init();
+   acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();
request_standard_resources();
 
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
index d8cebe3..9fbba50 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
@@ -83,3 +83,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR) += acpi_pad.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_APEI)+= apei/
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_EXTLOG)  += acpi_extlog.o
+
+obj-y  += plat/
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 000..46bc65e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64)+= arm-core.o
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..162a1ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+/*
+ *  ARM/ARM64 Specific Low-Level ACPI Boot Support
+ *
+ *  Copyright (C) 2013, Al Stone 
+ *  Copyright (C) 2013, Graeme Gregory 
+ *  Copyright (C) 2013, Hanjun Guo 
+ *
+ * ~~
+ *
+ *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ *  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ *  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ *  (at your option) any later version.
+ *
+ *  This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ *  but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ *  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+ *  GNU General Public License for more details.
+ *
+ * ~~
+ */
+
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+#include 
+
+#include 
+
+/*
+ * We never

[PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-17 Thread Hanjun Guo 
Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.

Signed-off-by: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory graeme.greg...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |   57 +++
 arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c |6 ++
 drivers/acpi/Makefile |2 +
 drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile|1 +
 drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c  |  209 +
 5 files changed, 275 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
 create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
index cf19dc6..908d71b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
@@ -19,6 +19,43 @@
 #ifndef _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
 #define _ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H
 
+#include asm/cacheflush.h
+
+#include linux/init.h
+
+#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_INT64   s64
+#define COMPILER_DEPENDENT_UINT64  u64
+
+/*
+ * Calling conventions:
+ *
+ * ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE- Interfaces to host OS (handlers, threads)
+ * ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE  - External ACPI interfaces
+ * ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE  - Internal ACPI interfaces
+ * ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE  - Internal variable-parameter list interfaces
+ */
+#define ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE
+#define ACPI_EXTERNAL_XFACE
+#define ACPI_INTERNAL_XFACE
+#define ACPI_INTERNAL_VAR_XFACE
+
+/* Asm macros */
+#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() flush_cache_all()
+
+/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+extern int acpi_disabled;
+extern int acpi_noirq;
+extern int acpi_pci_disabled;
+extern int acpi_strict;
+
+static inline void disable_acpi(void)
+{
+   acpi_disabled = 1;
+   acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
+   acpi_noirq = 1;
+}
+
 static inline bool arch_has_acpi_pdc(void)
 {
return false;   /* always false for now */
@@ -29,4 +66,24 @@ static inline void arch_acpi_set_pdc_bits(u32 *buf)
return;
 }
 
+static inline void acpi_noirq_set(void) { acpi_noirq = 1; }
+static inline void acpi_disable_pci(void)
+{
+   acpi_pci_disabled = 1;
+   acpi_noirq_set();
+}
+
+/* FIXME: this function should be moved to topology.h when it's ready */
+void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot);
+
+/* temperally define -1 to make acpi core compilerable */
+#define cpu_physical_id(cpu) -1
+
+#else  /* !CONFIG_ACPI */
+#define acpi_disabled 1/* ACPI sometimes enabled on ARM */
+#define acpi_noirq 1   /* ACPI sometimes enabled on ARM */
+#define acpi_pci_disabled 1/* ACPI PCI sometimes enabled on ARM */
+#define acpi_strict 1  /* no ACPI spec workarounds on ARM */
+#endif
+
 #endif /*_ASM_ARM64_ACPI_H*/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
 #include linux/memblock.h
 #include linux/of_fdt.h
 #include linux/of_platform.h
+#include linux/acpi.h
 
 #include asm/cputype.h
 #include asm/elf.h
@@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 
arm64_memblock_init();
 
+   /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
+   acpi_boot_table_init();
+   early_acpi_boot_init();
+   acpi_boot_init();
+
paging_init();
request_standard_resources();
 
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
index d8cebe3..9fbba50 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/acpi/Makefile
@@ -83,3 +83,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR_AGGREGATOR) += acpi_pad.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_APEI)+= apei/
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI_EXTLOG)  += acpi_extlog.o
+
+obj-y  += plat/
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile b/drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 000..46bc65e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/acpi/plat/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+obj-$(CONFIG_ARM64)+= arm-core.o
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
new file mode 100644
index 000..162a1ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/drivers/acpi/plat/arm-core.c
@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
+/*
+ *  ARM/ARM64 Specific Low-Level ACPI Boot Support
+ *
+ *  Copyright (C) 2013, Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
+ *  Copyright (C) 2013, Graeme Gregory graeme.greg...@linaro.org
+ *  Copyright (C) 2013, Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org
+ *
+ * ~~
+ *
+ *  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ *  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ *  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ *  (at your option) any later version.
+ *
+ *  This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ *  but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ *  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+ *  GNU General Public

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-17 Thread Will Deacon 
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
 Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
 we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.
 
 Signed-off-by: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
 Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory graeme.greg...@linaro.org
 Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org

[...]

 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
  #include linux/memblock.h
  #include linux/of_fdt.h
  #include linux/of_platform.h
 +#include linux/acpi.h
  
  #include asm/cputype.h
  #include asm/elf.h
 @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
  
   arm64_memblock_init();
  
 + /* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
 + acpi_boot_table_init();
 + early_acpi_boot_init();
 + acpi_boot_init();

Do we really need *three* back-to-back calls for ACPI to initialise?

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

Re: [PATCH 04/20] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file

2014-01-17 Thread Hanjun Guo 
On 2014-1-17 22:12, Will Deacon wrote:
 On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:24:58PM +, Hanjun Guo wrote:
 Introduce arm_core.c and its related head file, after this patch,
 we can get ACPI tables from firmware on ARM64 now.

 Signed-off-by: Al Stone al.st...@linaro.org
 Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory graeme.greg...@linaro.org
 Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun@linaro.org
 
 [...]
 
 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 index bd9bbd0..2210353 100644
 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
 @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
  #include linux/memblock.h
  #include linux/of_fdt.h
  #include linux/of_platform.h
 +#include linux/acpi.h
  
  #include asm/cputype.h
  #include asm/elf.h
 @@ -225,6 +226,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
  
  arm64_memblock_init();
  
 +/* Parse the ACPI tables for possible boot-time configuration */
 +acpi_boot_table_init();
 +early_acpi_boot_init();
 +acpi_boot_init();
 
 Do we really need *three* back-to-back calls for ACPI to initialise?

Sorry, my colleague Graeme had integrate them as one function but I
forgot to merge them in this patch, my bad, will update it in next
version.

Thanks
Hanjun

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