| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <57715463.5040305@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 18:29:23 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Vikas Sajjan <vikas.cha.sajjan@....com>,
Sunil <sunil.vl@....com>,
Prashanth Prakash <pprakash@...eaurora.org>,
Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>,
Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] arm64: add support for ACPI Low Power Idle(LPI)
On 06/22/2016 04:17 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> Hi Sudeep,
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 03:48:38PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> This patch adds appropriate callbacks to support ACPI Low Power Idle
>> (LPI) on ARM64.
>>
>> Now that arm_enter_idle_state is exactly same in both generic ARM{32,64}
>> CPUIdle driver and ARM64 backend for ACPI processor idle driver, we can
>> unify it and move to cpuidle-arm.h header.
>>
>> Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c | 17 +++++++++++++
>> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c | 23 ++----------------
>> drivers/firmware/psci.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/cpuidle-arm.h | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 include/linux/cpuidle-arm.h
>
> This patch seems fine by me, it would be good if Daniel can have
> a look too.
>
> Some minor comments below.
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci.c
>> index 03e04582791c..c6caa863d156 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/psci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>>
>> #define pr_fmt(fmt) "psci: " fmt
>>
>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>> #include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
>> #include <linux/cpuidle.h>
>> #include <linux/errno.h>
>> @@ -310,11 +311,66 @@ static int psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +#include <acpi/processor.h>
>> +
>> +static int __maybe_unused psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + int i, count;
>> + u32 *psci_states;
>> + struct acpi_processor *pr;
>> + struct acpi_lpi_state *lpi;
>> +
>> + pr = per_cpu(processors, cpu);
>> + if (unlikely(!pr || !pr->flags.has_lpi))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If the PSCI cpu_suspend function hook has not been initialized
>> + * idle states must not be enabled, so bail out
>> + */
>> + if (!psci_ops.cpu_suspend)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> + count = pr->power.count - 1;
>> + if (count <= 0)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + psci_states = kcalloc(count, sizeof(*psci_states), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!psci_states)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>> + u32 state;
>> +
>> + lpi = &pr->power.lpi_states[i + 1];
>> + state = lpi->address & 0xFFFFFFFF;
Why mask 'address' if 'state' is u32 ?
>> + if (!psci_power_state_is_valid(state)) {
>> + pr_warn("Invalid PSCI power state %#x\n", state);
>> + kfree(psci_states);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> + psci_states[i] = state;
>> + }
>> + /* Idle states parsed correctly, initialize per-cpu pointer */
>> + per_cpu(psci_power_state, cpu) = psci_states;
>> + return 0;
The ACPI and the PSCI code are not self contained here.
It would be nice to move this function to the ACPI code.
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static int __maybe_unused psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>> int psci_cpu_init_idle(unsigned int cpu)
>> {
>> struct device_node *cpu_node;
>> int ret;
>>
>> + if (!acpi_disabled)
>> + return psci_acpi_cpu_init_idle(cpu);
>> +
acpi_disabled - acpi_disabled - acpi_disabled everywhere :/
The enable-method approach is not straightforward and now it is polluted
by acpi-disabled.
So IIUC,
smp_init_cpus (contains acpi_disabled)
smp_cpu_setup
cpu_read_ops
cpu_read_enable_method (contains acpi_disabled)
acpi_get_enable_method (returns 'psci' after checking
psci_is_present)
Then psci_cpu_init_idle is called... and check again acpi_disabled.
IMO, the circumlocution with the psci vs acpi vs acpi_disabled is
getting unnecessary too complex, is prone to error and will lead to
unmaintainable code very soon.
I suggest to sort out encapsulation and self-contained code before
adding more feature in this area.
>> cpu_node = of_get_cpu_node(cpu, NULL);
>> if (!cpu_node)
>> return -ENODEV;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuidle-arm.h b/include/linux/cpuidle-arm.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..b99bcb3f43dd
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/include/linux/cpuidle-arm.h
>
> arm-cpuidle.h for consistency with other (ARM) include/linux files ?
>
>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>> +#include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
>> +
>> +#include <asm/cpuidle.h>
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * arm_enter_idle_state - Programs CPU to enter the specified state
>> + */
>> +static int arm_generic_enter_idle_state(int idx)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + if (!idx) {
>> + cpu_do_idle();
>> + return idx;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = cpu_pm_enter();
>> + if (!ret) {
>> + /*
>> + * Pass idle state index to cpu_suspend which in turn will
>> + * call the CPU ops suspend protocol with idle index as a
>> + * parameter.
>> + */
>> + ret = arm_cpuidle_suspend(idx);
>> +
>> + cpu_pm_exit();
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret ? -1 : idx;
>> +}
>
> Either you do this, or we have to add it somehow somewhere in
> drivers/cpuidle to avoid duplicating it.
>
> @Daniel: do you have an opinion on this please ?
I don't like the idea to add an ARM arch specific header in
include/linux. I thought this directory was supposed to contain as much
as possible arch agnostic headers.
May be the name can be changed to something more generic:
eg.
int cpuidle_generic_enter(int idx);
and then add an option:
HAVE_CPUIDLE_GENERIC_ENTER
, then in the generic header:
#ifdef HAVE_CPUIDLE_GENERIC_ENTER
int cpuidle_generic_enter(int idx);
#endif
, change the function name in cpuidle-arm .c
and finally add in the ARM and ARM64 Kconfig's option
HAVE_CPUIDLE_GENERIC_ENTER.
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists