From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755390AbcEZWba (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2016 18:31:30 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]:36966 "EHLO mail-ig0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755189AbcEZWb2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2016 18:31:28 -0400 Reply-To: ahs3@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/1] ARM64: ACPI: Update documentation for latest specification version References: <20160516234441.GA7425@arm.com> <44cda485-1c43-f7c3-676b-f9c47785daf6@linaro.org> To: Al Stone , Alexey Klimov Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org From: Al Stone X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Organization: Red Hat, Inc. Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 16:31:24 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <44cda485-1c43-f7c3-676b-f9c47785daf6@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/17/2016 10:30 AM, Al Stone wrote: > On 05/16/2016 05:44 PM, Alexey Klimov wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 09:19 PM, Al Stone wrote: >>> On 04/25/2016 03:21 PM, Al Stone wrote: >>>> The ACPI 6.1 specification was recently released at the end of January >>>> 2016, but the arm64 kernel documentation for the use of ACPI was written >>>> for the 5.1 version of the spec. There were significant additions to the >>>> spec that had not yet been mentioned -- for example, the 6.0 mechanisms >>>> added to make it easier to define processors and low power idle states, >>>> as well as the 6.1 addition allowing regular interrupts (not just from >>>> GPIO) be used to signal ACPI general purpose events. >>>> >>>> This patch reflects going back through and examining the specs in detail >>>> and updating content appropriately. Whilst there, a few odds and ends of >>>> typos were caught as well. This brings the documentation up to date with >>>> ACPI 6.1 for arm64. >>>> >>>> Changes for v5: >>>> -- Miscellaneous typos and corrections (Lorenzo Pieralisi) >>>> -- Add linux-acpi@ ML to the distribution list (Alexey Klimov) >>>> -- Corrections to CPPC information (Alexey Klimov) >>>> -- ACK from Lorenzo Pieralisi >>>> -- Updated bibliographic info (Al Stone) >>>> >>>> Changes for v4: >>>> -- Clarify that IORT can sometimes be optional (Jon Masters). >>>> -- Remove "Use as needed" descriptions of ACPI objects; they provide >>>> no substantive information and doing so simplifies maintenance of >>>> this document over time. These have been replaced with a simpler >>>> notice that states that unless otherwise noted, do what the ACPI >>>> specification says is needed. >>>> -- Corrected the _OSI object usage recommendation; it described kernel >>>> behavior that does not exist (Al Stone). >>>> >>>> Changes for v3: >>>> -- Clarify use of _LPI/_RDI (Vikas Sajjan) >>>> -- Whitespace cleanup as pointed out by checkpatch >>>> >>>> Changes for v2: >>>> -- Clean up white space (Harb Abdulhahmid) >>>> -- Clarification on _CCA usage (Harb Abdulhamid) >>>> -- IORT moved to required from recommended (Hanjun Guo) >>>> -- Clarify IORT description (Hanjun Guo) >>>> >>>> >>>> Al Stone (1): >>>> ARM64: ACPI: Update documentation for latest specification version >>>> >>>> Documentation/arm64/acpi_object_usage.txt | 343 ++++++++++++++++-------------- >>>> Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt | 40 ++-- >>>> 2 files changed, 213 insertions(+), 170 deletions(-) >>>> >>> >>> Ping? If there are no further comments, can this be pulled in through >>> either the documentation or arm64 tree? >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Hi Al, >> sorry for delay. >> >> CPPC and PCC corrections look fine. Thanks. >> >> >> This comment is not to block your patch (maybe some to-do): >> I greped sources and your patch and I don't see description of _PSD object. >> This P-state dependancy object is optional but it's presense and correct data >> are extremely useful for CPPC and can potentially descrease number of performance >> changing requests. >> >> ACPI spec in section about CPPC tells that it may use _PSD (page 503 if I remember >> correctly) to specify domain belongings of CPUs. >> >> You may consider to add description of _PSD object later. >> >> Best regards, >> Alexey. >> > > Hrm. Thanks, Alexey. I'll take a look. _PSD may be in one of > the gray areas where we expect people to read the spec and follow > it properly, but it may make sense to be very explicit about what > they need to do to use it properly. Perhaps this would make a good > FWTS test, too. > Yet another ping... Just in case it is not clear, Alexey's comment and my reply here are things that *might* need to be done in the future. This version of the patch I believe is sufficient for now, based on the comments received. Lorenzo has ACKd; Hanjun has reviewed. Do I need Will and/or Catalin to ACK? Any others? -- ciao, al ----------------------------------- Al Stone Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. ahs3@redhat.com -----------------------------------