On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Anup, > > On Wed, Dec 18 2013 at 03:03:43 PM, Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 05:05:34PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: >>>>> The Power State and Coordination Interface (PSCI) specification defines >>>>> SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET functions for system poweroff and reboot. >>>>> >>>>> This patchset adds emulation of PSCI SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET functions >>>>> in KVM ARM/ARM64 by forwarding them to user space (QEMU or KVMTOOL) using >>>>> KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT exit reason. >>>>> >>>>> To try this patch from guest kernel, we will need PSCI-based restart and >>>>> poweroff support in the guest kenel for both ARM and ARM64. >>>>> >>>>> Rob Herring has already submitted patches for PSCI-based restart and >>>>> poweroff in ARM kernel but these are not merged yet due unstable device >>>>> tree bindings of kernel PSCI support. We will be having similar patches >>>>> for PSCI-based restart and poweroff in ARM64 kernel. >>>>> (Refer http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg262217.html) >>>>> (Refer http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg05348.html) >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> I can merge this series if Marc acks it as well. >>> >>> The patches themselves are mostly fine. One issue though: They implement >>> part of the v0.2 spec, but keep on using the range of function IDs that >>> we made up for v0.1. >>> >>> I just had a chat with the person responsible for the spec, and realized >>> that the Function IDs mentionned in the v0.2 spec are not optional, and >>> not using them would be in direct violation of the spec (the new numbers >>> now come directly from the SMC calling convention). >> >> Should we emulate PSCI_VERSION call to help Guest determine >> the spec version emulated by KVM (i.e. v0.1 or v0.2) ?? > > I think that'd be a nice to have, but the guest is likely to get its > information from the DT anyway. Plus I don't think the original PSCI > spec specified PSCI_VERSION, which only make it useful for whatever > comes after v0.2. > > So I think we need to: > - Use the new range for PSCI v0.2 (while still supporting v0.1 and the > old range) Does this mean we should have first isolate v0.2 ID range from v0.1 ID range? And then... Rebase this patchset based on new v0.2 ID range? > - Get the kernel and DT bindings into shape > - Merge all of that at the same time > > Cheers, > > M. > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
