[PATCH 1/2] Documentation: riscv: Add early boot document
Alexandre Ghiti
alexghiti at rivosinc.com
Tue Jun 20 02:09:47 PDT 2023
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 6:00 PM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 04:04:52PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 2:26 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:47:04AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/riscv/boot.rst b/Documentation/riscv/boot.rst
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..b02230818b79
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/riscv/boot.rst
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
> > > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +
> > > > +=============================================
> > > > +Early boot requirements/constraints on RISC-V
> > > > +=============================================
> > >
> > > Please use "title case", here and elsewhere in the doc.
> >
> > You mean using "title: " instead of "===="? Or using uppercase for the
> > first letter of each word? FYI I followed
> > https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/sphinx.html?highlight=title#specific-guidelines-for-the-kernel-documentation
>
> The latter. That's weird, I guess it would be nice to see what Jon
> thinks about that.
>
> > > > +Reserved memory for resident firmware
> > > > +-------------------------------------
> > > > +
> > > > +The RISC-V kernel expects the firmware to mark any resident memory with the
> > >
> > > Should this be
> > > "...resident memory, or memory it has protected with PMPs, with..."
> > > ?
> >
> > I used "resident" memory instead of "PMP" memory because it was more
> > general. I mean you can have a region that is resident but not
> > protected by PMP, and I don't think the kernel should ask for this
> > resident memory to be protected with PMP right?
>
> Nah, I was thinking about the opposite. PMP protected regions that do
> not have memory-resident programs in them.
Ok, I'll add a reference to PMP regions like you mentioned the first time.
>
> > > > +`no-map` flag, thus the kernel won't map those regions in the direct mapping
> > >
> > > "no-map" is a DT specific term, should this section be moved down under
> > > DT, as a sub-section of that?
> >
> > Maybe I can rephrase with something like that:
> >
> > "The RISC-V kernel must not map any resident memory in the direct
> > mapping, so the firmware must correctly mark those regions as follows:
> > - when using a devicetree, using the `no-map` flag,
> > - when booting with UEFI without devicetree, either as
> > `EfiRuntimeServicesData/Code` or `EfiReserved`."
>
> I'm not sure you need to have a list to be honest. Could do it in
> free-form text if you like. But you've got 3 options there for Efi
> stuff, isn't only one of them a valid equivalent for "no-map"?
Indeed, the no-map attribute is (according to the dt spec) always
converted to EfiReservedMemoryType and no-map is the only way to
"reserve" such memory using devicetree. A firmware can also mark those
regions as EfiRuntimeServicesData/Code so that they don't get mapped
in the direct mapping. But ok, let's make it simple, I'll go with
something like Sunil's proposition.
> >
> > > > +(avoiding issues with hibernation, speculative accesses and probably other
> > > > +subsystems).
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that this () section is beneficial. To be honest, recent
> > > issues aside, this section here seems like a statement of the obvious...
> >
> > But I made the mistake, so it was not that straightforward to
> > me...I'll remove the ().
>
> I know, hence the "recent issues aside" ;)
>
> > > > +that's not the case.
> > > > +
> > > > +Device-tree
> >
> > Damn, missed this one, thanks!
> >
> > >
> > > s/Device-tree/Devicetree/ and...
> > >
> > > > +-----------
> > > > +
> > > > +The RISC-V kernel always expects a device tree, it is:
> > >
> > > ...s/device tree/devicetree/ to match elsewhere in the kernel docs.
> > > Same applies to the other instances of "device tree" in this patch,
> > > please.
> >
> > Ok I'll do that (but I'm happy to say that I thought about that and it
> > was intentional since "git grep "device tree" | wc -l" returns a
> > significant number of instances :)).
>
> Yeah, I had the same thoughts recently too. It's completely mixed
> unfortunately, but I suppose I was going off of the headings in the DT
> docs that are in rst form. It's not a big deal obviously.
>
> > > > +- either passed directly to the kernel from the previous stage using the `$a1`
> > > > + register,
> > > > +- or when booting with UEFI, the device tree will be retrieved by the EFI stub
> > > > + using the EFI configuration table or it will be created.
> > >
> > > Can I suggest changing this around a little, pulling the "either" &
> > > dropping some boilerplate so that it reads (to me!) a little more
> > > naturally:
> > > The RISC-V kernel always expects a devicetree, it is either:
> > >
> > > - passed directly to the kernel from the previous stage using the `$a1`
> > > register,
> > > - retrieved by the EFI stub when booting with UEFI, using the EFI
> > > configuration table or it will be created by ____.
> > >
> > > Also, please elaborate on what it will be created by.
> >
> > Is it better this way:
> >
> > "The RISC-V kernel always expects a devicetree, it is either:
> >
> > - passed directly to the kernel from the previous stage using the
> > `$a1`
> > register,
> > - retrieved by the EFI stub if present in the EFI configuration table,
> > - created by the EFI stub otherwise."
>
> Nah, I think the 2 bullet structure was better. This 3 bullet mode
> implies that if not passed in a1, then the EFI stub will create it.
> Which is obviously not true
I'll go with Sunil's proposition which is way better than the list above!
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +Bootflow
> > >
> > > "Boot Flow", no?
> > > I am not sure that this is the "correct" heading for the content it
> > > describes, but I have nothing better to offer :/
> >
> > Yes you're right, what about simply "Kernel Entrance"? Not sure this
> > is easily understandable though.
>
> "Non-boot Hart Initialisation"?
Hmmm not that great either (sorry for being direct here)
>
> > > > +--------
> > > > +
> > > > +There exist 2 methods to enter the kernel:
> > > > +
> > > > +- `RISCV_BOOT_SPINWAIT`: the firmware releases all harts in the kernel, one hart
> > > > + wins a lottery and executes the early boot code while the other harts are
> > > > + parked waiting for the initialization to finish. This method is now
> > >
> > > nit: s/now//
> >
> > Ok
> >
> > >
> > > What do you mean by deprecated? There's no requirement to implement the
> > > HSM extension, right?
> >
> > I would say yes, you have to use a recent version of openSBI that
> > supports the HSM extension. @Atish Kumar Patra WDYT?
>
> Uh, you don't need to use OpenSBI in the first place, let alone use a
> recent version of it, right? What am I missing?
You need a M-Mode firmware which follows the SBI specification and
that implements the HSM extension.
> Also, what about !SMP systems? Although my suggested new section title
> kinda addresses that!
I'll add "On SMP systems, there exist 2 methods to enter the
kernel:....", I don't think we need to detail the !SMP case as it is
obvious.
>
> > > > + **deprecated**.
> > > > +- Ordered booting: the firmware releases only one hart that will execute the
> > > > + initialization phase and then will start all other harts using the SBI HSM
> > > > + extension.
> > > > +
> > > > +UEFI
> > > > +----
> > > > +
> > > > +UEFI memory map
> > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > +
> > > > +When booting with UEFI, the RISC-V kernel will use only the EFI memory map to
> > > > +populate the system memory.
> > > > +
> > > > +The UEFI firmware must parse the subnodes of the `/reserved-memory` device tree
> > > > +node and abide by the device tree specification to convert the attributes of
> > > > +those subnodes (`no-map` and `reusable`) into their correct EFI equivalent
> > > > +(refer to section "3.5.4 /reserved-memory and UEFI" of the device tree
> > > > +specification).
> > > > +
> > > > +RISCV_EFI_BOOT_PROTOCOL
> > > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > +
> > > > +When booting with UEFI, the EFI stub requires the boot hartid in order to pass
> > > > +it to the RISC-V kernel in `$a1`. The EFI stub retrieves the boot hartid using
> > > > +one of the following methods:
> > > > +
> > > > +- `RISCV_EFI_BOOT_PROTOCOL` (**preferred**).
> > > > +- `boot-hartid` device tree subnode (**deprecated**).
> > > > +
> > > > +Any new firmware must implement `RISCV_EFI_BOOT_PROTOCOL` as the device tree
> > > > +based approach is deprecated now.
> > > > +
> > > > +During kernel boot: (Kernel internals)
> > >
> > > With the other section titles changed, this could be:
> > > Early Boot Requirements and Constraints
> > > =======================================
> > >
> > > The RISC-V kernel's early boot process operates under the
> > > following constraints:
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > I think it's better as you propose, I changed it, thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > > +======================================
> > > > +
> > > > +EFI stub and device tree
> > >
> > > Same comments about "device tree" here etc.
> > >
> > > > +------------------------
> > > > +
> > > > +When booting with UEFI, the device tree is supplemented by the EFI stub with the
> > > > +following parameters (largely shared with arm64 in Documentation/arm/uefi.rst):
> > > > +
> > > > +========================== ====== ===========================================
> > > > +Name Size Description
> > > > +========================== ====== ===========================================
> > > > +linux,uefi-system-table 64-bit Physical address of the UEFI System Table.
> > >
> > > nit: Hmm, I think for all of these sizes s/-bit/ bits/.
> >
> > That's a copy-paste from the link just above the table.
> >
> > But maybe I should have pointed to the doc and added only the
> > "bootargs" stuff (maybe that's also present for arm64 actually).
>
> If it is identical, sounds like a good idea. It's common code that does
> that stuff, right?
Yep, all of that is done in the same generic function in libstub
(update_fdt()). I'll move the bootargs stuff to the arm documentation
\o/
>
> > > > +---------------------
> > > > +
> > > > +The installation of the virtual mapping is done in 2 steps in the RISC-V kernel:
> > > > +
> > > > +1. :c:func:`setup_vm` installs a temporary kernel mapping in
> > > > + :c:var:`early_pg_dir` which allows to discover the system memory: only the
> > >
> > > s/to discover/discovery of/
> >
> > You mean "the discovery of" right?
>
> No? The "the" there would not be required.
That was a genuine question, thanks
>
> > > > +For :c:func:`virt_to_phys` and :c:func:`phys_to_virt` to be able to correctly
> > > > +convert direct mapping addresses to physical addresses, it needs to know the
> > >
> > > nit: s/it/they/
> >
> > Ok
> >
> > >
> > > > +start of the DRAM: this happens after 1, right before 2 installs the direct
> > >
> > > s/:/./
> >
> > Ahah, you really don't like long sentences :)
>
> I dunno if it is long sentences per se, I just think it is easier to
> follow.
>
> > But of course ok :)
> >
> > > Also how about s/1/step 1/ & s/2/step 2/?
> >
> > Way better, thanks
>
> > > > +Pre-MMU execution
> > > > +-----------------
> > > > +
> > > > +Any code that executes before even the first virtual mapping is established
> > > > +must be very carefully compiled as:
> > >
> > > Could you point out what the non-obvious examples of this code are?
> >
> > I can do a list, yes
>
> Not even a list, just something like "...established, for example early
> alternatives and foo, must be very..."
Done as follows:
"A few pieces of code need to run before even the first virtual mapping is
established, that comprises the installation of the first virtual mapping, the
early alternatives and the early parsing of the kernel command line. That code
must be very carefully compiled as:..."
>
> > Thanks for your thorough review!
>
> NW chief.
>
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list