[PATCH v2 16/17] drivers/firmware/sdei: Retrieve event signaled property on registration

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:03:32 +1000
Gavin Shan <gshan at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
> 
> On 7/27/20 7:04 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 10:53:27 +1000
> > Gavin Shan <gshan at redhat.com> wrote:  
> >> On 7/24/20 1:24 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:  
> >>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:57:39 +1000
> >>> Gavin Shan <gshan at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>> This retrieves the event signaled property when it's created for the
> >>>> first time. The property will be needed when SDEI virtualization is
> >>>> supported.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan at redhat.com>  
> >>>
> >>> These last two patches are probably fine but hard to tell without a user.
> >>>      
> >>
> >> Good question. Let me explain the background and please let me know
> >> if you have more questions. SDEI was suggested by Marc to deliver
> >> the notification during the asynchronous page fault, so that the
> >> process can be rescheduled in guest. Unfortunately, we don't have
> >> SDEI (or virtualized SDEI) supported yet. So the additional event
> >> information is needed when SDEI virtualization is supported.
> >>
> >> The code of SDEI virtualization can be checked out from github:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/gwshan/linux/tree/sdei (branch: "sdei")  
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > I'd be tempted to move these two patches to the next series
> > that includes the users.
> > 
> > I forgot to say, I'm fine with all the patches I didn't comment on.
> >   
> 
> Yes, it's fine to move the last two patches to where we need
> them. Thanks for your review and comments. May I have your
> reviewed-by on those patches you didn't comment on? I would
> like to pick the reviwed-by in v3 :)
> 
Sure FWIW (I'm far from an expert in this area!)

Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron at huawei.com>
for patches
1-7,13,15 as is
8-10 with trivial changes as discussed.
12 already given

Given postponing 16 and 17, that just leaves 11 and 14 that I'd
like to take a quick look at in v3.

Jonathan


> >>      
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c | 6 ++++++
> >>>>    include/linux/arm_sdei.h    | 1 +
> >>>>    2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c
> >>>> index cf10fec57f2a..7518d3febf53 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_sdei.c
> >>>> @@ -204,6 +204,12 @@ static struct sdei_event *sdei_event_create(u32 event_num,
> >>>>    		goto fail;
> >>>>    	event->type = result;
> >>>>    
> >>>> +	err = sdei_api_event_get_info(event_num, SDEI_EVENT_INFO_EV_SIGNALED,
> >>>> +				      &result);
> >>>> +	if (err)
> >>>> +		goto fail;
> >>>> +	event->signaled = result;
> >>>> +
> >>>>    	if (event->type == SDEI_EVENT_TYPE_SHARED) {
> >>>>    		reg = kzalloc(sizeof(*reg), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>>    		if (!reg) {
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/arm_sdei.h b/include/linux/arm_sdei.h
> >>>> index 11af6410dd52..7f3ed7e4b680 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/arm_sdei.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/arm_sdei.h
> >>>> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ struct sdei_event {
> >>>>    	u32			event_num;
> >>>>    	u8			type;
> >>>>    	u8			priority;
> >>>> +	u8			signaled;
> >>>>    
> >>>>    	/* This pointer is handed to firmware as the event argument. */
> >>>>    	union {  
> >>  
> 
> Thanks,
> Gavin
>