On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 12:19:01PM -0700, Yunhong Jiang wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:56:38AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 10/09/2024 08:13, Yunhong Jiang wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:45:49PM -0700, Yunhong Jiang wrote: > > >> On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 09:10:01AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 04:23:20PM -0700, Yunhong Jiang wrote: > > >>>> Add the binding to use mailbox wakeup mechanism to bringup APs. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> .../devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml | 64 +++++++++++++++++++ > > >>>> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) > > >>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml > > >>>> new file mode 100644 > > >>>> index 000000000000..cb84e2756bca > > >>>> --- /dev/null > > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml > > >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ > > >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > >>>> +# Copyright (C) 2024 Intel Corporation > > >>>> +%YAML 1.2 > > >>>> +--- > > >>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/x86/wakeup.yaml# > > >>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > >>>> + > > >>>> +title: x86 mailbox wakeup > > >>>> +maintainers: > > >>>> + - Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> + > > >>>> +description: | > > >>>> + The x86 mailbox wakeup mechanism defines a mechanism to let the bootstrap > > >>>> + processor (BSP) to wake up application processors (APs) through a wakeup > > >>>> + mailbox. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + The "wakeup-mailbox-addr" property specifies the wakeup mailbox address. The > > >>>> + wakeup mailbox is a 4K-aligned 4K-size memory block allocated in the reserved > > >>>> + memory. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + The wakeup mailbox structure is defined as follows. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + uint16_t command; > > >>>> + uint16_t reserved; > > >>>> + uint32_t apic_id; > > >>>> + uint64_t wakeup_vector; > > >>>> + uint8_t reservedForOs[2032]; > > >>>> + > > >>>> + The memory after reservedForOs field is reserved and OS should not touch it. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + To wakes up a AP, the BSP prepares the wakeup routine, fills the wakeup > > >>>> + routine's address into the wakeup_vector field, fill the apic_id field with > > >>>> + the target AP's APIC_ID, and write 1 to the command field. After receiving the > > >>>> + wakeup command, the target AP will jump to the wakeup routine. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + For each AP, the mailbox can be used only once for the wakeup command. After > > >>>> + the AP jumps to the wakeup routine, the mailbox will no longer be checked by > > >>>> + this AP. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + The wakeup mailbox structure and the wakeup process is the same as > > >>>> + the Multiprocessor Wakeup Mailbox Structure defined in ACPI spec version 6.5, > > >>>> + section 5.2.12.19 [1]. > > >>>> + > > >>>> + References: > > >>>> + > > >>>> + [1] https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/05_ACPI_Software_Programming_Model.html > > >>>> + > > >>>> +select: false > > >>> > > >>> This schema is still a no-op because of this false. > > >>> > > >>> What is the point of defining one property if it is not placed anywhere? > > >>> Every device node can have it? Seems wrong... > > >>> > > >>> You need to come with proper schema. Lack of an example is another thing > > >>> - this cannot be even validated by the tools. > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Krzysztof > > > > > > Hi, Krzysztof, I'm working to address your comments and have some questions. > > > Hope to get help/guide from your side. > > > > > > For the select, the writing-schema.rst describes it as "A json-schema used to > > > match nodes for applying the schema" but I'm a bit confused. In my case, should > > > it be "cpus" node? Is there any code/tools that uses this property, so that I > > > can have a better understanding? > > > > Usually we expect matching by compatible, but it does not seem suitable > > here because it is not related to any specific device, right? That is > > the problem with all this DT-reuse-for-virtual-stuff work. It just does > > not follow usual expectations and guidelines - you do not describe a device. > > Thank you for the reply. > > I'm a bit confused on your "do not describe a device". > I think VM is also a device, it's just a virtual device, but I don't see much > difference of the virtual and physical device from DT point of view, possibly I > missed some point. > > > > > You can still match by nodes. See all top-level bindings. > > After checking the code at > https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/validator.py, > seems the 'select' is translated to 'if'/'then'. > > Do you have any example of "top-level bindings"? I tried to check binding for > enable-methods like arm/cpu-enable-method/nuvoton,npcm750-smp or > cpu/idle-states.yaml, but they are either not schema file, or quite different. > > I have been struggling on this device binding document for a while. I > reconsidered what this binding is for. This binding means, if the cpus node has > "enable-method" as "acpi-wakeup-mailbox", then the device should have property > "wakeup-mailbox-addr" with uint64 type. > > In that case, I'm considering to set the "select" to be true so that it will > apply to any potential device, and add if/then keyword to check the > enable-method. But seems it does not work and I'm still trying to figure out the > reason (I'm new to the json/json schema and is still learning). > > I received followed error: > cpus: '#address-cells', '#size-cells', 'cpu@0', 'enable-method' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' > from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/x86/wakeup.yaml# > cpu@0: 'device_type', 'reg' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+' > from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/x86/wakeup.yaml# > > With the followed yaml file (I delete some description). > > $ cat Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml > # SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > # Copyright (C) 2024 Intel Corporation > %YAML 1.2 > --- > $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/x86/wakeup.yaml# > $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > title: x86 mailbox wakeup > maintainers: > - Yunhong Jiang <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > description: | > ...... > Removed to save space. > > properties: > wakeup-mailbox-addr: > $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > description: | > ...... > Removed to save space. > > select: true > > if: > properties: > enable-method: > contains: > const: acpi-wakeup-mailbox > required: > - enable-method > > then: > required: > - wakeup-mailbox-addr > > additionalProperties: false > > examples: > - | > cpus { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <0>; > enable-method = "acpi-wakeup-mailbox"; > wakeup-mailbox-addr = <0x1c000500>; > cpu@0 { > device_type = "cpu"; > reg = <0x1>; > }; > }; > ... > > > > > > > > > For your "validated by the tools", can you please share the tools you used to > > > validate the schema? I used "make dt_binding_check" per the > > > submitting-patches.rst but I think your comments is about another tool. > > > > See writing-schema document. > Yes, I figured out in the end that the validate tools means the dt-schema tools. > > Thank you > --jyh One thing just come to my mind. The Documentation/devicetree/bindings/x86/wakeup.yaml only adds one property, wakeup-mailbox-addr, to the cpus node, and it does not specify any new object. Per my understanding, the json schema file normally specifies a new object. Is my change a supported scenario in current Documentation/devicetree? I checked similar scenario like arm/cpu-enable-method/nuvoton and npcm750-smp/cpu-enable-method/al,alpine-smp, they don't present as a json schema file. Wonder if it's because the same reason. > > > > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > > > >
