[PATCH v3 02/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Get RSDP and ACPI boot-time tables

Sudeep Holla sudeep.holla at arm.com
Tue Sep 9 11:05:09 PDT 2014

On 09/09/14 18:50, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:15:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On 09/09/2014 12:26 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:57:40PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..3899ee6
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acenv.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * ARM64 specific ACPICA environments and implementation
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>> + *   Author: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
>>>>> + *   Author: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory at linaro.org>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>> +#define _ASM_ACENV_H
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE() WARN_ONCE(1, "Not currently supported on ARM64")
>>>> Does this mean that it will be supported at some point? Looking at the
>>>> places where this function is called, I don't really see how this would
>>>> ever work on ARM. Which means that we add such macro just to be able to
>>>> compile code that would never be used on arm64. I would rather see the
>>>> relevant ACPI files only compiled on x86/IA-64 rather than arm64.
>>> That specific cache behavior is a part of e.g. ACPI C3 state support
>>> (e.g. ACPI5.1 8.1.4 Processor Power State C3).
>> Per table 5-35, if neither WBINVD or WBINVD_FLUSH are set in the FADT,
>> we don't get S1, S2, or S3 states either.
>>> As you note, it's not going to work on 64-bit ARM as it does on x86,
>>> but it's optional to implement C3 and early 64-bit ARM systems should
>>> not report Wbindv flags in the FADT anyway.
>> Unless the arm cache architecture changes, I wouldn't expect any 64-bit
>> ARM system to set either of the WBINVD flags.
>>> They can also set FADT.P_LVL3_LAT > 1000, which has the effect of
>>> disabling C3 support, while also allowing for use of _CST objects to
>>> define more flexible C-States later on.
>> It sounds like we should be sanity checking these in the arm64 ACPI code
>> for the moment. I don't want us to discover that current platforms
>> report the wrong thing only when new platforms come out that might
>> actually report things correctly.
> I think that the kernel must ignore most of the stuff mentioned above
> in HW_REDUCED_ACPI mode. And to be frank I still think that the problem
> is not even there. The problem is trying to compile code that basically
> has no defined behaviour - ie it is unspecified - on ARM64, that's what
> Catalin pointed out.
> I understand it is compiled in by default on x86, but that's not a reason
> why we should add empty hooks all over the place to compile code that
> does not stand a chance to be doing anything sensible apart from
> returning an error code, in the best case scenario.

I had pointed out this earlier, even if we make it compile there's
every possibility that it can blow up if some vendor adds S- states
to their ACPI tables. One clear reason why it could blow up is:

      /* This violates the spec but is required for bug compatibility. */
      acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE, 1);

I don't think this can ever work on ARM platforms. So better to fix it


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list