Hi Russell,
One inline comment.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King <rmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Russell King
> Sent: 2023年10月24日 23:19
> To: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; loongarch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-csky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jean-Philippe Brucker
> <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@xxxxxxx>; Justin He
> <Justin.He@xxxxxxx>; James Morse <James.Morse@xxxxxxx>; Catalin
> Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@xxxxxxx>; Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mark
> Rutland <Mark.Rutland@xxxxxxx>; Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH 34/39] arm64: psci: Ignore DENIED CPUs
>
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When a CPU is marked as disabled, but online capable in the MADT, PSCI applies
> some firmware policy to control when it can be brought online.
> PSCI returns DENIED to a CPU_ON request if this is not currently permitted. The
> OS can learn the current policy from the _STA enabled bit.
>
> Handle the PSCI DENIED return code gracefully instead of printing an error.
>
> See https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0022/f/?lang=en page 58.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx> [ morse:
> Rewrote commit message ]
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes since RFC v2
> * Add specification reference
> * Use EPERM rather than EPROBE_DEFER
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c index
> 29a8e444db83..4fcc0cdd757b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/psci.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static int cpu_psci_cpu_boot(unsigned int cpu) {
> phys_addr_t pa_secondary_entry = __pa_symbol(secondary_entry);
> int err = psci_ops.cpu_on(cpu_logical_map(cpu), pa_secondary_entry);
> - if (err)
> + if (err && err != -EPROBE_DEFER)
Should this be EPERM? As the following psci cpu_on op will return it. I think you miss to change this when apply Jean-Philippe's patch.
Thanks
Jianyong
> pr_err("failed to boot CPU%d (%d)\n", cpu, err);
>
> return err;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c index
> 8c8f55721786..68ec7fbe166f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
> /* Now bring the CPU into our world */
> ret = boot_secondary(cpu, idle);
> if (ret) {
> - pr_err("CPU%u: failed to boot: %d\n", cpu, ret);
> + if (ret != -EPERM)
> + pr_err("CPU%u: failed to boot: %d\n", cpu, ret);
> return ret;
> }
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c index
> d9629ff87861..ee82e7880d8c 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> @@ -218,6 +218,8 @@ static int __psci_cpu_on(u32 fn, unsigned long cpuid,
> unsigned long entry_point)
> int err;
>
> err = invoke_psci_fn(fn, cpuid, entry_point, 0);
> + if (err == PSCI_RET_DENIED)
> + return -EPERM;
> return psci_to_linux_errno(err);
> }
>
> --
> 2.30.2
|