-----Original Message----- From: linaro-acpi-bounces@lists.linaro.org [mailto:linaro-acpi- bounces@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Al Stone Sent: 17 December 2014 00:03 To: Catalin Marinas; Arnd Bergmann Cc: linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org; Rafael J. Wysocki; ACPI Devel Mailing List; Olof Johansson; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [RFC] ACPI on arm64 TODO List
On 12/16/2014 08:27 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:27:48AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 15 December 2014 19:18:16 Al Stone wrote:
TODO List for ACPI on arm64:
[snip..]
- Set clear expectations for those providing ACPI for use with
Linux
- Problem:
- Hardware/Firmware vendors can and will create ACPI tables
that
cannot be used by Linux without some guidance * Kernel developers cannot determine whether the kernel orfirmware
is broken without knowing what the firmware should do
- Solution: document the expectations, and iterate as needed. Enforce when we must.
- Status: initial kernel text available; AMD has offered to make their guidance document generic; firmware summit planned for deeper discussions.
[snip...]
Another example is SMP booting. The ACPI 5.1 spec mentions the
parking
protocol but I can't find a reference to the latest document. In the meantime, we stick to PSCI.
Hrm. A bug in the spec.
Every external document mentioned in the ACPI spec is supposed to have a link that will eventually get you to the source document. All links in the spec should point here http://www.uefi.org/acpi which in turn has links to the authoritative original documents. However, it looks like the parking protocol document pointed to (the "Multiprocessor Startup" link) may not be the most recent version. The reference in the spec to the protocol (Table 5-61, Section 5.2.12.14)) also appears to be useless (it points to http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp which doesn't have the document either). I've filed a change request with ASWG to fix this.
I also raised both of these a while back, I expect the next errata release to correct this.
That being said, the early systems still don't provide PSCI. They will at some point in the future, but not now. Regardless, I think it's reasonable for us to say that if you want ACPI support, PSCI must be used for secondary CPU startup. People can hack something up to get the parking protocol to work on development branches if they want, but I personally see no need to get that into the kernel -- and it needs to be said explicitly in arm-acpi.txt.
-- ciao, al
Al Stone Software Engineer Linaro Enterprise Group al.stone@linaro.org
Linaro-acpi mailing list Linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-acpi