On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 05:29:26PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2014-8-15 18:01, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > Hanjun, > > Hi Catalin, > > > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:09:42AM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> On 2014-8-14 18:27, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 04:21:25AM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>>> On 2014-8-14 7:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 07:23:47 PM Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>>>>> If we consider ACPI unusable on ARM but we still want to start merging > >>>>>> patches, we should rather make the config option depend on BROKEN > >>>>>> (though if it is that unusable that no real platform can use it, I would > >>>>>> rather not merge it at all at this stage). > >>>>> > >>>>> I agree here. > >>>>> > >>>>> I would recommend creating a separate branch for that living outside of the > >>>>> mainline kernel and merging it when there are real users. > >>>> > >>>> Real users will coming soon, we already tested this patch set on real hardware > >>>> (ARM64 Juno platform), > >>> > >>> I don't consider Juno a server platform ;) (but it's good enough for > >>> development). > >>> > >>>> and I think ARM64 server chips and platforms will show up before 3.18 > >>>> is released. > >>> > >>> That's what I've heard/seen. The questions I have are (a) whether > >>> current ACPI patchset is enough to successfully run Linux on such > >>> _hardware_ platform (maybe not fully optimised, for example just WFI > >>> cpuidle) and (b) whether we still want to mandate a DT in the kernel for > >>> such platforms. > >> > >> For (a), this patch set is only for ARM64 core, not including platform > >> specific device drivers, it will be covered by the binding of _DSD or > >> explicit definition of PNP ID/ACPI ID(s). > > > > So we go back to the discussions we had few months ago in Macau. I'm not > > concerned about the core ARM and architected peripherals covered by ACPI > > 5.1 (as long as the current patches get positive technical review). But > > I'm concerned about the additional bits needed for a real SoC like _DSD > > definitions, how they get reviewed/accepted (or is it just the vendor's > > problem?). > > As the _DSD patch set sent out by Intel folks, _DSD definitions are just > DT definitions. To use _DSD or not, I think it depends on OEM use cases, > we can bring up Juno without _DSD (Graeme is working on that, still need > some time to clean up the code). > > > > > I think SBSA is too vague to guarantee a kernel image running on a > > compliant platform without additional (vendor-specific) tweaks. So what > > I asked for is (1) a document (guide) to define the strict set of ACPI > > features and bindings needed for a real SoC and (2) proof that the > > guidelines are enough for real hardware. I think we have (1) under > > review with some good feedback so far. As for (2), we can probably only > > discuss Juno openly. I think you could share the additional Juno patches > > on this list so that reviewers can assess the suitability. If we deem > > ACPI not (yet) suitable for Juno, is there other platform we could see > > patches for? > > Ok, we will send out all the patches for Juno in next version for review, > as mentioned above, we still need more time to clean up the code. > > > > >>> Given the answer to (a) and what other features are needed, we may or > >>> may not mandate (b). We were pretty clear few months ago that (b) is > >>> still required but at the time we were only openly talking about ACPI > >>> 5.0 which was lacking many features. I think we need to revisit that > >>> position based on how usable ACPI 5.1 for ARM (and current kernel > >>> implementation) is. Would you mind elaborating what an ACPI-only > >>> platform miss? > >> > >> Do you mean something still missing? We still miss some features for > >> ARM in ACPI, but I think they are not critical, here is the list I can > >> remember: > >> - ITS for GICv3/4; > >> - SMMU support; > >> - CPU idle control. > > > > I agree, these are not critical at this stage. But they only refer to > > architected peripherals. Is there anything else missing for an SoC? Do > > we need to define clocks? > > No, I prefer not. As we discussed in this thread before, we don't need > clock definition if we use SBSA compatible UART on Juno. > > > > >> For ACPI 5.1, it fixes many problems for ARM: > >> - weak definition for GIC, so we introduce visualization, v2m and > >> part of GICv3/4 (redistributors) support. > >> - No support for PSCI. Fix it to support PSCI 0.2+; > >> - Not support for Always-on timer and SBSA-L1 watchdog. > > > > These are all good, that's why we shouldn't even talk about ACPI 5.0 in > > the ARM context. > > > >> - How to describe device properties, so _DSD is introduced for > >> device probe. > > > > For the last bullet, is there any review process (at least like what we > > have for DT bindings)? On top of such process, do we have guidelines and > > example code on how the Linux support should be implemented. As Olof > > mentioned, should we see how the DT and ACPI probing paths work > > together? I really think we should be very clear here and not let > > vendors invent their own independent methods. > > As said above, Intel folks provided some good examples for that, and > clarified a lot of things: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/17/10 > > > > >>> I would expect a new server platform designed with ACPI in mind to > >>> require minimal SoC specific code, so we may only see a few patches > >>> under drivers/ for such platforms adding ACPI-specific probing (possibly > >>> new drivers as well if it's a new component). > >>> > >>>> For this patch set, DT is the first class citizen at now: > >>>> > >>>> a) We can always set CONFIG_ACPI as off in Kconfig, and use DT only; > >>> > >>> Not just off but, based on maturity, depend on EXPERT. > >> > >> Ok. And don't set ACPI default off (pass acpi=on to enable it)? > > > > That's my view, just make it clear ACPI is experimental at the Kconfig > > level because longer term we won't mandate SoCs to provide both DT and > > ACPI tables. > > I agree with you that if we set ACPI default off, firmware will always > pass acpi=on if they want to use ACPI, so I think it would be better > to depend on EXPERT instead. > > Olof, is it ok to you too? Given that we're going through all these complex schemes to merge code that isn't ready and keeping it off by default, the answer is really to continue holding off merging it. We already had agreement from earlier this year that we needed to see several systems in the _market_ that uses ACPI before we have an idea of how messy they will be in reality. Not eval boards, development systems or reference designs. None of the current discussion has changed that. There's also the concern that there are still significant portions missing from 5.1 that won't be there until 5.2 or later. Having experimental 5.1 support for a few systems (out of tree) is likely going to result in finding out things that don't work well and should be revised -- if we don't merge this now then we can avoid having to keep the 5.1 backwards compatibility forever. Compare this to how we've been regretting some of the early-defined bindings on DT and wish we didn't have to keep them around. Please learn from our mistakes. :-) On the patches themselves: It's great to see the patch sets posted, and they're looking pretty good -- things are very much heading in the right direction. My main remaining objection is around how it is integrated with the arch code. I don't like seeing all the dual code paths that ACPI introduces. It's obvious that two completely different entities have written the ACPI and the DT portions of the kernel, and we can't really have that situation for a brand new architecture like this. So, I'd like to see closer integration between the two before code goes in. More shared code path and driving the differences through data (or possibly function pointers in places, etc), and fewer completely separate implementations. Until then, please keep posting patches for review -- it's useful to see where it's going. I think it's also useful to get the generic ACPI integration merged as it has been already (with pieces going in over time). If someone already needs to climb the hurdle of turning on an EXPORT config option, then it's really not a significant additional hurdle to merge in an external branch that includes the ACPI support (and that branch can enable it by default!). So, I think that's the solution that makes sense for the time being. -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
