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 <shannon.z...@linaro.org>

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) [<ffff000008088708>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1a8
(d86) [<ffff0000080888c4>] show_stack+0x14/0x20
(d86) [<ffff0000083d6c2c>] dump_stack+0x94/0xb8
(d86) [<ffff00000815c24c>] panic+0x10c/0x250
(d86) [<ffff000008c223f8>] init_IRQ+0x24/0x2c
(d86) [<ffff000008c20a24>] start_kernel+0x238/0x394
(d86) [<ffff000008c201bc>] __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

Reply via email to