On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18 2013 at 03:52:29 PM, Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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? > > Yes. Are you planning to do it ? OR Do you expect me to do it because this patchset would depend on that? > >> And then... >> >> Rebase this patchset based on new v0.2 ID range? > > Indeed. > > Thanks, > > M. > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny. Regards, Anup _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
