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

[Gavin Shan]

Hi Jonathan,

On 7/27/20 11:56 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 20:03:32 +1000
> Gavin Shan <gshan at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 

Thanks for your confirmation. Except PATCH[11] and PATCH[14], all
other patches in v3 will include your r-b. Thanks again for your
time and comments :)

>>>>       
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     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