[+Ard, Sami, for EFI]
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 06:55:43PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 06:15:47PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HIBERNATION
> > +static int psci_sys_hibernate(struct sys_off_data *data)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Zero is an acceptable alternative to PSCI_1_3_OFF_TYPE_HIBERNATE_OFF
> > + * and is supported by hypervisors implementing an earlier version
> > + * of the pSCI v1.3 spec.
> > + */
>
> It is obvious but with this patch applied a host kernel would start executing
> SYSTEM_OFF2 too if supported in firmware to hibernate, it is not a hypervisor
> only code path.
>
> Related to that: is it now always safe to override
>
> commit 60c0d45a7f7a ("efi/arm64: use UEFI for system reset and poweroff")
>
> for hibernation ? It is not very clear to me why overriding PSCI for
> poweroff was the right thing to do - tried to follow that patch history but
> the question remains (it is related to UpdateCapsule() but I don't know
> how that applies to the hibernation use case).
RFC: It is unclear to me what happens in current mainline if we try to
hibernate with EFI runtime services enabled and a capsule update pending (we
issue EFI ResetSystem(EFI_RESET_SHUTDOWN,..) which might not be compatible
with the reset required by the pending capsule update request) what happens
in this case I don't know but at least the choice is all contained in
EFI firmware.
Then if in the same scenario now we are switching to PSCI SYSTEM_OFF2 for the
hibernate reset I suspect that what happens to the in-flight capsule
update requests strictly depends on what "reset" PSCI SYSTEM_OFF2 will
end up doing ?
I think this is just a corner case and it is unlikely it has been ever
tested (is it even possible ? Looking at EFI folks) - it would be good
to clarify it at least to make sure we understand this code path.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
