On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:05:25 -0700, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:38 +0800, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ACPI 5.1 has been released and now be freely available for > >> download [1]. It fixed some major gaps to run ACPI on ARM, > >> this patch just follow the ACPI 5.1 spec and prepare the > >> code to run ACPI on ARM64. > >> > >> ACPI 5.1 has some major changes for the following tables and > >> method which are essential for ARM platforms: > >> 1) MADT table updates. > >> 2) FADT updates for PSCI > >> 3) GTDT > >> > >> This patch set is the ARM64 ACPI core patches covered MADT, FADT > >> and GTDT, platform board specific drivers are not covered by this > >> patch set, but we provide drivers for Juno to boot with ACPI only > >> in the follwing patch set for review purpose. > >> > >> We first introduce acpi.c and its related head file which are needed > >> by ACPI core, and then get RSDP to extract all the ACPI boot-time tables. > >> When all the boot-time tables (FADT, MADT, GTDT) are ready, then > >> parse them to init the sytem when booted. Specifically, > >> a) we use FADT to init PSCI and use PSCI to boot SMP; > >> b) Use MADT for GIC init and SMP init; > >> c) GTDT for arch timer init. > >> > >> This patch set is based on 3.17-rc2 and was tested by Graeme on Juno > >> and FVP base model boot with ACPI only OK, if you want to test them, > >> you can pull from acpi-5.1-v3 branch in leg/acpi repo: > >> git://git.linaro.org/leg/acpi/acpi.git > >> > >> Updates since v2: > >> - Refactor the code to make SMP/PSCI init with less sperated init > >> path by Tomasz > >> - make ACPI depend on EXPERT > >> - Address lots of comments from Catalin, Sudeep, Geoff > >> - Add Juno device ACPI driver patches for review > >> > >> Updates since v1: > >> - Set ACPI default off on ARM64 suggested by Olof; > >> - Rebase the patch set on top of linux-next branch/linux-pm tree which > >> includes the ACPICA for full ACPI 5.1 support. > >> - Update the document as suggested; > >> - Adress lots of comments from Mark, Sudeep, Randy, Naresh, Olof, Geoff > >> and more... > >> > >> [1]: http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_5_1release.pdf > > > > I've read through this entire series now. In my mind, aside from a few > > comments that I know you're addressing, this is ready. The hooks into > > arm64 core code are not terribly invasive, it is nicely organized and > > manageable. Get the next version out ASAP, but I would also like to see > > the diffs from this version to the next so I don't need to review the > > entire series again. > > I'm going to take a pass on the next version of the series that will > get posted; I've been a bit too busy to pay close attention to the > series the last few weeks and I might as well wait until the next > version at this rate. I've asked Hanjun to prepare diffs from one version of the series to the next so that I don't need to rereview the entire thing. He sent them to me privately. Do you want me to pass them along to you? > > > Regarding the requests to refactor ACPICA to work better for ARM. I > > completely agree that it should be done, but I do not think it should be > > a prerequisite to getting this core support merged. That kind of > > refactoring is far easier to justify when it has immediate improvement > > on the mainline codebase, and it gives us a working baseline to test > > against. Doing it the other way around just makes things harder. > > > > I would really like to see the next version of this series go into > > linux-next. I think this is ready for some wider exposure. Have you got > > a branch being pulled into Fengguang's autobuilder yet? > > That's not how -next works. We only add code to -next that is targeted > to the upcoming release, we certainly don't add it to get "wider > exposure". If the code is ready then it can go in, but that's not the > case at this time. Sorry, I had a bad moment there. Apologies. Getting it into Fengguang's builder is appropriate though. > For "wider exposure" -- who do you have in mind? Everybody that's > currently got hardware relevant for this already needs out-of-tree > patches, so getting it into -next doesn't add any exposure. Doesn't > Linaro do kernel builds and publish trees for this reason already? There is the wider exposure of ensuring the ACPI patches don't interfere with non-ACPI users, and also making sure it builds with configuration combinations that we've not tried. g. -- 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
