On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:44 PM, dbasehore . <dbasehore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 3:22 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 02/03/18 02:08, dbasehore . wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:29 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi Mark, >>>> >>>> On 01/03/18 11:41, Mark Rutland wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 09:48:18PM -0800, Derek Basehore wrote: >>>>>> Some platforms power off GIC logic in suspend, so we need to >>>>>> save/restore state. The distributor and redistributor registers need >>>>>> to be handled in platform code due to access permissions on those >>>>>> registers, but the ITS registers can be restored in the kernel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Derek Basehore <dbasehore@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> How much state do we have to save/restore? >>>>> >>>>> Given we can apparently read all this state, couldn't we *always* save >>>>> the state, then upon resume detect if the state has been lost, restoring >>>>> it if so? >>>>> >>>>> That way, we don't need a property in FW tables for DT or ACPI. >>>> >>>> That's a good point. I guess that we could just compare the saved >>>> GITS_CTLR register and restore the full state only if the ITS comes back >>>> as disabled. >>>> >>>> I'm just a bit worried that it makes it an implicit convention between >>>> kernel an FW, which could change in funny ways. Importantly, the PSCI >>>> spec says states FW should restore *the whole state*. Obviously, it >>>> cannot to that on HW that doesn't allow you to read out the state, hence >>>> the DT flag that outlines the departure from the expected behaviour. >>>> >>>> I'm happy to go either way, but then I have the feeling that we should >>>> go back to quirking it on the actual implementation (GIC500 in this >>>> case) if we're to from the property. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> @@ -3261,6 +3363,9 @@ static int __init its_probe_one(struct resource *res, >>>>>> ctlr |= GITS_CTLR_ImDe; >>>>>> writel_relaxed(ctlr, its->base + GITS_CTLR); >>>>>> >>>>>> + if (fwnode_property_present(handle, "reset-on-suspend")) >>>>>> + its->flags |= ITS_FLAGS_SAVE_SUSPEND_STATE; >>>>> >>>>> Does this allow this property on an ACPI system? >>>>> >>>>> If we need this on ACPI, we need a spec update to handle this properly, >>>>> and shouldn't use device properties like this. >>>> >>>> Well spotted. I guess that dropping the property would fix that >>>> altogether, assuming we feel that the above is safe enough. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> I'm fine changing it to get rid of the devicetree property. >>> >>> What's the reason for quirking the behavior though? It's not that much >>> code + data and nothing else relies on the state of the ITS getting >>> disabled across suspend/resume. Even if something did, we'd have to >>> resolve it with this feature anyways. >> >> The reason we do this is to cope with GIC500 having the collection state >> in registers instead of memory. If we didn't have this extraordinary >> misfeature, FW could do a full save/restore of the ITS, and we wouldn't >> have to do anything (which is what the driver currently expects). >> >> A middle ground approach is to limit the feature to systems where >> GITS_TYPER.HCC is non-zero instead of limiting it to GIC500. Pretty easy >> to fix. This should have the same effect, as GIC500 is the only >> implementation I'm aware of with HCC!=0. >> >> Given that we're already at -rc5 and that I'd like to queue things for >> 4.17, I've made this change myself and queued patches 1 and 3 here[1]. >> >> Can you please have a look at let me know if that works for you? >> > > Assuming that your fine with only having the GIC500 implementations > that have HCC as non-zero getting ITS registers restored in the > kernel. As far as I can tell, this can happen in firmware for all > implementations. It's only the code to resend that MAPC on resume that > needs to be in the kernel. Actually, I guess we can't tell if we need to resend MAPC on resume if the firmware restores the state. Assuming it's a problem to just resend MAPC all the time, only restoring the ITS registers in the kernel when HCC != 0 makes sense. > >> Thanks, >> >> M. >> >> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git >> irq/irqchip-next >> -- >> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
