[PATCH v4 1/6] firmware/psci: Add definitions for PSCI v1.3 specification

[Miguel Luis]

Hi David,

> On 26 Sep 2024, at 16:30, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2024-09-26 at 09:56 +0000, Miguel Luis wrote:
>> 
>>> +/* PSCI v1.3 hibernate type for SYSTEM_OFF2 */
>>> +#define PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF 0
>> 
>> Should it be 1 as hibernate type?
> 
> It is in discovery, as BIT(PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF) == 1<<0 == 1.
> 

Now I see the definition for PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF was misleading for me
when BIT(PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF) works for both discovery and as argument
for SYSTEM_OFF2.

The common factor being the bit offset in the bitmap for SYSTEM_OFF2 discovery
and argument to call SYSTEM_OFF2 as well. Would it be clearer something like:

#define  PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF BIT(0)

Assuming future definitions would keep the same common factor can be helpful, however
please let me know whether I am missing something.

Thanks,
Miguel

> But using a bitmask was only supposed to be for the discovery with
> PSCI_FEATURES, as that has to advertise all the available hibernation
> types.
> 
> The actual SYSTEM_OFF2 call was supposed to just take the numeric value
> as an argument, since obviously *that* one isn't a bitmask. 
> 
> Except... I see that now the spec has finally been updated, it seems to
> say that 0x1 is the value to pass to the SYSTEM_OFF2 call for
> HIBERNATE_OFF, not 0x0. Which doesn't seem to make much sense, and I
> don't recall it being what we discussed. Souvik, what happened there?
> 
> My understanding was that for each supported hibernation type #n, for
> which HIBERERNATE_OFF is zero), the PSCI_FEATURES query would include
> the bit (1<<n) to indicate that it is supported, and then the actual
> SYSTEM_OFF2 call parameter would be (n) itself, precisely as
> implemented here.
> 
> But the spec now seems to say that HIBERNATE_OFF is advertised as
> (1<<0) in PSCI_FEATURES, but invoked with the value (1).
> 
> Is it too late to fix?
> 
> If it isn't just a thinko, what is the intent in the current spec?
> 
> If we have new hibernate types such that
> 
> #define PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF 0
> #define PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_FOO 1
> #define PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_BAR 2
> 
> It seems obvious that the PSCI_FEATURES response will contain (1<<0),
> (1<<1) and (1<<2) for them respectively, but what is supposed to be
> passed to the actual SYSTEM_OFF2 call? Is it always just going to be
> (PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_xxx + 1)?
> 
> I think we should just fix §5.1.10 to report that 0x0 is HIBERNATE_OFF,
> yes?
>