Hi Mark, Lurndal,
On 21 March 2017 at 02:50, Lurndal, Scott Scott.Lurndal@cavium.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 06:09:50PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:57:58AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
On 18 March 2017 at 04:01, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:15AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
I've not been able to find where the ACPI spec says that zero is not a valid GSIV. This may simply be an oversight/ambiguity in the spec.
Is there any statement to that effect?
you are right, zero is a valid GSIV, I will delete this check. Thanks
That being the case, how does one describe a watchdog that does not have an interrupt?
As I mentioned, I think this is an oversight/ambiguity in the spec tat we should address.
My reading of SBSA is that there is one watchdog in the system.
Is that not the case?
do you mean:
4.2.4 Watchdogs The base server system implements a Generic Watchdog as specified in APPENDIX A: Generic Watchdog.
I am not sure about that if this is saying "we only have one SBSA watchdog in a system"
would you let me know where mention it? Do I miss something?
My reading was that the 'a' above meant a single element. i.e.
The base server system implements _a_ Generic Watchdog as specified in APPENDIX A: Generic Watchdog.
It is a requirement of a conforming implementation that there be a generic watchdog (impl as per the appendix). That doesn't preclude an implmentation from providing additional watchdogs (for example, if the processor implements EL3, it is likely that an implementation will include a secure watchdog as well as a non-secure watchdog).
The SBSA describes the minimal hardware requirements for a compliant server.
So I think, for the SBSA watchdog:
(1) there maybe more then one non-secure watchdog in GTDT
(2) we may also need to skip secure watchdogs in GTDT, and only register non-secure watchdogs into platform resources.
Please correct me, if I misunderstand something.
scott