From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>, <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>,
<patches@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] ACPI / processor: Introduce map_gic_id() to get apic id from MADT or _MAT method
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 11:30:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d2ad8ee5d9a7875fe121a30beb8d2e8c@www.loen.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53087A0F.6010302@linaro.org>
On 2014-02-22 10:21, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014-2-21 20:37, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Hi Hanjun,
>>
>> (Adding MarcZ for his views on GIC)
>>
>> On 20/02/14 03:59, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> Hi Sudeep,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments, please refer to the replies below. :)
>>>
>>> On 2014年02月19日 22:33, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> Hi Hanjun,
>>>>
>>>> On 18/02/14 16:23, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> Get apic id from MADT or _MAT method is not implemented on
>>>>> arm/arm64,
>>>>> and ACPI 5.0 introduces GIC Structure for it, so this patch
>>>>> introduces
>>>>> map_gic_id() to get apic id followed the ACPI 5.0 spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>>>>> b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>>>>> index 4dcf776..d316d9b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_core.c
>>>>> @@ -71,6 +71,27 @@ static int map_lsapic_id(struct
>>>>> acpi_subtable_header *entry,
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static int map_gic_id(struct acpi_subtable_header *entry,
>>>>> + int device_declaration, u32 acpi_id, int *apic_id)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gic =
>>>>> + (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)entry;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!(gic->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED))
>>>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* In the GIC interrupt model, logical processors are
>>>>> + * required to have a Processor Device object in the DSDT,
>>>>> + * so we should check device_declaration here
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (device_declaration && (gic->uid == acpi_id)) {
>>>>> + *apic_id = gic->gic_id;
>>>> I have mentioned this earlier, it's not clear yet to me how does
>>>> this work ?
>>>> It needs more clarity in the form of comment here at-least as the
>>>> ACPIv5.0 is
>>>> also not so clear or explicit on how to handle this.
>>>
>>> Yes, I noticed your comments and had a reply for that, after a
>>> long consideration for this, I would withdraw my previous comments
>>> before, please refer to the comments below.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here you are expecting gic->uid = acpi_id which is fine, while
>>>> acpi_map_cpuid
>>>> matches apic_id with cpu_physical_id(which must be MPIDR in
>>>> ARM{32,64}). The
>>>> latter imposes restriction that gic->gic_id has to be MPIDR. Does
>>>> that mean we
>>>> are imposing restriction on GIC ID to be MPIDR ? If so please
>>>> document it here
>>>> and please explain the reason behind that choice.
>>>
>>> On x86 and IA64, APIC/SAPIC ID is the hardware id of the logical
>>> processor, and UID is just a unique ID to identify the processor in
>>> DSDT, it
>>> can be any value, and even can be strings defined in ASL if I
>>> remember
>>> that correctly.
>>>
>> OK, but that's not the case on ARM{32,64}. My main concern here is
>> if we don't
>> make this definitions clear enough, the vendors might produce ACPI
>> tables with
>> whatever suits them and we may end up supporting them. Since we are
>> starting
>> with clean slate, we can avoid getting into such situations. I will
>> be to be
>> more elaborate this time.
>
> I agree.
>
>>
>> The GIC ID is referred as the local GIC’s hardware ID in ACPIv5.0.
>> IIUC, since GICC is per-cpu entry, it has to GIC CPU interface ID.
>>
>> Now how does it differ from MPIDR ? e.g. ARM TC2(multi cluster
>> system)
>> GIC ID MPIDR Comment
>> 0 0x000 CA15_0
>> 1 0x001 CA15_1
>> 2 0x100 CA7_0
>> 3 0x101 CA7_1
>> 4 0x102 CA7_2
>
> Yes, obvious different. I know GIC ID can matche the bit index of the
> associated processor
> in the distributor's GICD_ITARGETSR register, and it a clear
> statement in GICv1/GICv2, my
> question is that is this consistent in GICv3/v4 too? this will have
> some impact on the
> code implementation.
For GICv3/v4, the only way you can match a CPU with its local
redistributor is by using the CPU MPIDR. The GIC CPU ID is an
implementation choice that may not exist (it doesn't in a distributed
implementation), so anything that relies on a GIC CPU ID is broken for
GICv3.
M.
--
Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-22 12:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-18 16:23 [PATCH v5 0/5] Prepare for running ACPI on !x86 and !ia64 Hanjun Guo
2014-02-18 16:23 ` [PATCH v5 1/5] ACPI / idle: Make idle_boot_override depend on x86 and ia64 Hanjun Guo
2014-02-18 16:23 ` [PATCH v5 2/5] ACPI / processor_core: Rework _PDC related stuff to make it more arch-independent Hanjun Guo
2014-02-19 0:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-19 2:16 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-02-19 16:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-21 18:24 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-02-21 23:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-02-22 10:33 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-02-24 6:57 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-02-18 16:23 ` [PATCH v5 3/5] ACPI / processor: Introduce map_gic_id() to get apic id from MADT or _MAT method Hanjun Guo
2014-02-19 14:33 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-02-20 3:59 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-02-21 12:37 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-02-22 10:21 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-02-22 11:30 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2014-02-24 6:48 ` Hanjun Guo
2014-02-18 16:23 ` [PATCH v5 4/5] ACPI: Move BAD_MADT_ENTRY() to linux/acpi.h Hanjun Guo
2014-02-18 16:23 ` [PATCH v5 5/5] ACPI: Replace printk with pr_* in tables.c Hanjun Guo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d2ad8ee5d9a7875fe121a30beb8d2e8c@www.loen.fr \
--to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=tianyu.lan@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®