Hi Rob, On Wed, Dec 18 2013 at 03:42:09 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Adding Mark Rutland. > > On 12/18/2013 08:38 AM, Marc Zyngier 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). > > News to me. That is exactly the opposite of what Mark Rutland told me. > This would certainly simplify things since the SMC calling convention > IDs encode the size and there would be no reason to put the IDs into > DT. Hmmm. I'd hate to contredict Mark. But as he's on holiday (and hopefully unlikely to reply immediately), I win the argument! ;-) More seriously, given that we have a document specifying the IDs, I'd be inclined to follow it. It is not that often that ARM actually *mandates* something... ;-) Mark (assuming you're reading this): what were your objections about following the ID mentioned in the spec? >> So I rekon we need to create a separate range for those. Also, I'd like >> to progress the DT and kernel side of things as well (otherwise this is >> all a bit pointless). >> >> Rob: what are your plans regarding your PSCI v0.2 patches? > > My plan was to simply add 2 optional properties for reset/off and be > done with it like is done here. I'll leave it to ARM to sort out all of > v0.2 ID and 32-bit vs. 64-bit issues. Thankfully, RESET and OFF are not of those property with two IDs. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
