On 09/09/2014 12:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> On 2014年09月09日 12:23, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On 09/01/2014 10:57 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> MADT contains the information for MPIDR which is essential for
>>> SMP initialization, parse the GIC cpu interface structures to
>>> get the MPIDR value and map it to cpu_logical_map(), and add
>>> enabled cpu with valid MPIDR into cpu_possible_map.
>>>
>>> ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP, PSCI and
>>> Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is only specified for
>>> ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only way for the SMP boot protocol
>>> before some updates for the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>> + /* CPU 0 was already initialized */
>>> + if (cpu) {
>>> + if (cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu))
>>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>> +
>>> + /* map the logical cpu id to cpu MPIDR */
>>> + cpu_logical_map(cpu) = mpidr;
>> I'm not sure it's worth noting in a comment or just in the dialogue that
>> none of these MPIDR values is literally the value in the MPIDR. Linux
>> doesn't store that anyway (even in the cpu_logical_map), since it is
>> pre-filtered against MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK to remove the non-affinity level
>> bits. And since the ACPI5.1 specification requires that non-affinity
>> bits be zero everything works. But it relies upon this assumption so it
>> might be worth explicitly masking out the bits when making the call into:
>>
>> acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr,
>> processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>>
>> During the parsing of the processor object's MPIDR value.
>
> Yes, I agree with you. When I tested this patch set on our
> ARM64 platform, I found this problem too. some firmware
> will just present the real MPIDR value to OS which some reserved
> bit set to 1, and it will lead to some logic problem in this patch.
> (actually firmware didn't obey with ACPI spec)
>
> I had updated the patch with:
>
> + acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(processor->arm_mpidr & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK,
> + processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED);
>
> and then the problem was gone :)
Did I miss an updated patch posting then? It is possible...I was keeping
out of this thread for "obvious" reasons (I'm somewhat biased in favor
of ACPI on 64-bit ARM server platforms and thus not objective in all
cases...so I am confining my feedback to technical specifics). But it's
necessary that there be a little more discussion here. I've got a couple
of requests into various vendors to get more vocal too.
Jon.
--
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
