linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150326102417.GA10949@red-moon>
Date:	Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:24:17 +0000
From:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"guohanjun@...wei.com" <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	Ashwin Chaugule <ashwinc@...eaurora.org>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000
> , Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
>  wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:09:33AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > > On 2015/3/19 3:05, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:39:26PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > > >> This patch set already tested on multi platforms:
> > > > >>  - AMD Seattle board;
> > > > >>  - Cavium Thunder board;
> > > > >>  - Huawei D02 board;
> > > > >>  - Qualcomm ARM64 platform
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This version 10 patch set address some minor comments and collect ACKs and
> > > > >> Reviewed-bys for v9:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  - new Acks from Rafael, Olof, Grant, Lorenzo
> > > > >>  - new way to handle typdef phys_cpuid_t which suggested by Rafael,
> > > > >>    but no functional change
> > > > >>  - Remove if(!phys) for early ioremappings
> > > > >>  - Rework sleep function for ARM64
> > > > >>  - Introduce linux/acpi_irq.h to hold acpi_irq_init()
> > > > >>  - Disable ACPI if not HW_REDUCED_ACPI compliant
> > > > >>  - Remove the doc of why ACPI on ARM
> > > > > So I've had a look at the current state of this series and I think there
> > > > > are a few immediate things left to do:
> > > > >
> > > > >   (1) Resolve the acpi=force cmdline issue highlighted by Lorenzo and
> > > > >       Catalin
> > > > 
> > > > Sure, it will be done after the confirmation with Ard.
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > >   (2) I believe Sudeep and Lorenzo have concerns about patch 13 (SMP init),
> > > > >       so I'm assuming there will be additional patches from them that are
> > > > >       required.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I assume that it is about the print information for PSCI absent for SMP init, right?
> > > 
> > > Not only that, Sudeep has a patch to consolidate DT and ACPI SMP code,
> > > I am working on it, I do not think it should be a blocking point, patch
> > > coming asap on top of your series.
> > 
> > Well, I don't really want to merge the series without those patches so I
> > do think it blocks the code from getting into mainline.
> 
> Really? It's a pretty minor duplication problem and it's been identified
> as something requiring refactoring to both the ACPI and DT code. It
> isn't at all dangerous. Why is this a blocking point?

The SMP init ACPI/DT consolidation, in particular in relation to cpu_ops may
not be a blocking point, but it is not a whim either and it deserves some
thought.

I will post a patch asap and the ACPI parking protocol support patches
strictly depend on this clean-up to be completed.

Lorenzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/