From patchwork Mon Sep 1 14:57:55 2014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Hanjun Guo X-Patchwork-Id: 4820681 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-linux-arm@patchwork.kernel.org Delivered-To: patchwork-parsemail@patchwork2.web.kernel.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.19.201]) by patchwork2.web.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFF9C0338 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:09:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DD1200DC for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:09:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51BF2200D0 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:08:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XOTAJ-0005KB-Ki; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:05:07 +0000 Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XOTAC-0004Af-Mv for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:05:04 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id g10so6308508pdj.7 for ; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 08:04:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references; bh=JmkvkfFHnZJr1dt/3GYos4IIxCWs95h2VLtO4n58H1o=; b=TN4LCTt+yuJwfZ+w0ZJZt4cKyGLJaFCEMSnaOjmA3yor8ADlThMRmUzD4RQqdjr/0G CTgI6tBGoEMru0X2N6phAz2xRFlGVEG+xzv1wSoHk7mfa/LIgWS8YJlDhtnupNfOGPg7 t85oTP/yVKRf2IMlQGLsSfAKg+1dISSDE8e6CXs1JqxaIL/yHduld8BGS5yjcWgCKDZi WBCSLj4xNJgCYXO2qxDYqv3Pm0aPJzwUQAmscl4DzE/1dsZTxKFAGf7Dm7oAHdpf7xY7 2VWMs4VlNJ34d2scOHBM2NcG1XJcqU64M+h1qtZ3qTF7KrNRvFX+Xkk5K9M0EN4tKBss 4krg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnb8Lds9kQ70a+i1G2tZEKhePfnv/Sl0EhHbd7FAGfwR8RkGWzPy/P0F5/WUFdGAQdv93Ib X-Received: by 10.68.117.238 with SMTP id kh14mr39856202pbb.55.1409583879904; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([202.104.114.248]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ol8sm1563890pdb.82.2014.09.01.08.04.30 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Sep 2014 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Hanjun Guo To: Catalin Marinas , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mark Rutland , Olof Johansson , Grant Likely Subject: [PATCH v3 17/17] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 22:57:55 +0800 Message-Id: <1409583475-6978-18-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.9.5 In-Reply-To: <1409583475-6978-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> References: <1409583475-6978-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20140901_080500_819064_F105B127 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 31.24 ) X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) Cc: linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org, Liviu Dudau , Lv Zheng , Rob Herring , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Daniel Lezcano , Robert Moore , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Charles.Garcia-Tobin@arm.com, Robert Richter , Jason Cooper , Arnd Bergmann , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , Mark Brown , Bjorn Helgaas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Graeme Gregory , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+patchwork-linux-arm=patchwork.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mail.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP From: Graeme Gregory Add documentation for the guidelines of how to use ACPI on ARM64. Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo --- Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt | 218 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 218 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..704a9e0 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt @@ -0,0 +1,218 @@ +ACPI on ARMv8 Servers +--------------------- + +ACPI can be used for ARMv8 general purpose servers designed to follow +the SBSA specification (currently available to people with an ARM login at +http://silver.arm.com). + +The kernel will implement minimum ACPI version is 5.1 + errata as released by +the UEFI Forum, which is available at . + +If the machine does not meet the requirements of the SBSA, or cannot be +described in the required ACPI specifications then it is likely that Device Tree +(DT) is more suitable for the hardware. + +Relationship with Device Tree +----------------------------- + +ACPI support in drivers and subsystems for ARMv8 should never be mutually +exclusive with DT support at compile time. + +At boot time the kernel will only use one description method depending on +parameters passed from the bootloader (including kernel bootargs). + +Regardless of whether DT or ACPI is used, the kernel must always be capable +of booting with either scheme (in kernels with both schemes enabled at compile +time). + +When booting using ACPI tables the /chosen node in DT will still be parsed +to extract the kernel command line and initrd path. No other section of +the DT will be used. + +Booting using ACPI tables +------------------------- + +Currently, the only defined method to pass ACPI tables to the kernel on ARMv8 +is via the UEFI system configuration table. + +The UEFI implementation MUST set the ACPI_20_TABLE_GUID to point to the +RSDP table (the table with the ACPI signature "RSD PTR "). + +The pointer to the RSDP table will be retrieved from EFI by the ACPI core. + +Processing of ACPI tables may be disabled by passing acpi=off on the kernel +command line. + +DO use an XSDT; RSDTs are deprecated and should not be used on arm64. They +only allow for 32-bit addresses. + +DO NOT use the 32-bit address fields in the FADT; they are deprecated. The +64-bit alternatives MUST be used. + +The minimum set of tables MUST include RSDP, XSDT, FACS, FADT, DSDT, MADT +and GTDT. If PCI is used the MCFG table MUST also be present. + +ACPI Detection +-------------- + +Drivers should determine their probe() type by checking for ACPI_HANDLE, +or .of_node, or other information in the device structure. This is +detailed further in the "Driver Recommendations" section. + +In non-driver code If the presence of ACPI needs to be detected at runtime, +then check the value of acpi_disabled. If CONFIG_ACPI is not set, +acpi_disabled will always be 1. + +Device Enumeration +------------------ + +Device descriptions in ACPI should use standard recognized ACPI interfaces. +These are far simpler than the information provided via Device Tree. Drivers +should take into account this simplicity and work with sensible defaults. + +On no account should a Device Tree attempt to be replicated in ASL using such +constructs as Name(KEY0, "Value1") type constructs. Additional driver specific +data should be represented with the appropriate _DSD (ACPI Section 6.2.5) +structure. _DSM (ACPI Section 9.14.1) should only be used if _DSD cannot +represent the data required. + +This data should be rare and not OS specific. For x86 ACPI has taken to +identifying itself as Windows because it was found that only one path was +routinely tested. For ARMv8 it would be preferable to have only one well +tested path. + +_DSD covers more than the generic server case and care should be taken not to +replicate highly specific embedded behaviour from DT into generic servers. + +Common _DSD bindings should be submitted to ASWG to be included in the +document :- + +http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-implementation-guide-toplevel.htm + +If these bindings are mirrored from DT care should be taken to ensure they are +reviewed as DT bindings before submission to limit divergance in bindings. + +Programmable Power Control Resources +------------------------------------ + +Programmable power control resources include such resources as voltage/current +providers (regulators) and clock sources. + +For power control of these resources they should be represented with Power +Resource Objects (ACPI Section 7.1). The ACPI core will then handle correctly +enabling/disabling of resources as they are needed. + +The ACPI 5.1 specification does not contain any standard binding for these +objects to enable programmable levels or rates so this should be avoided if +possible and the resources set to appropriate levels by the firmware. If this is +not possible then any manipulation should be abstracted in ASL. + +Each device in ACPI has D-states and these can be controlled through +the optional methods _PS0..._PS3 where _PS0 is full on and _PS3 is full off. + +If either _PS0 or _PS3 is implemented, then the other method must also be +implemented. + +If a device requires usage or setup of a power resource when on, the ASL +should organize that it is allocated/enabled using the _PS0 method. + +Resources allocated/enabled in the _PS0 method should be disabled/de-allocated +in the _PS3 method. + +Such code in _PS? methods will of course be very platform specific but +should allow the driver to operate the device without special non-standard +values being read from ASL. Further, abstracting the use of these resources +allows hardware revisions without requiring updates to the kernel. + +Clocks +------ + +Like clocks that are part of the power resources there is no standard way +to represent a clock tree in ACPI 5.1 in a similar manner to how it is +described in DT. + +Devices affected by this include things like UARTs, SoC driven LCD displays, +etc. + +The firmware (for example, UEFI) should initialize these clocks to fixed working +values before the kernel is executed. + +Driver Recommendations +---------------------- + +DO NOT remove any FDT handling when adding ACPI support for a driver. Different +systems may use the same device. + +DO try and keep complex sections of ACPI and DT functionality separate. This +may mean a patch to break out some complex DT to another function before +the patch to add ACPI. This may happen in other functions but is most likely +in probe function. This gives a clearer flow of data for reviewing driver +source. + +probe() :- + +static int device_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + /* DT specific functionality */ + ... +} + +static int device_probe_acpi(struct platform_device *pdev) +{ + /* ACPI specific functionality */ + ... +} + +static int device_probe(stuct platform_device *pdev) +{ + ... + struct device_node node = pdev->dev.of_node; + ... + + if (node) + ret = device_probe_dt(pdev); + else if (ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev)) + ret = device_probe_acpi(pdev); + else + /* other initialization */ + ... + /* Continue with any generic probe operations */ + ... +} + +DO keep the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE entries together in the driver to make it clear +the different names the driver is probed for, both from DT and from ACPI. + +module device tables :- + +static struct of_device_id virtio_mmio_match[] = { + { .compatible = "virtio,mmio", }, + { } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, virtio_mmio_match); + +static const struct acpi_device_id virtio_mmio_acpi_match[] = { + { "LNRO0005", }, + { } +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, virtio_mmio_acpi_match); + +ASWG +---- + +The following areas are not yet well defined for ARM in the current ACPI +specification and are expected to be worked through in the UEFI ACPI +Specification Working Group (ASWG) . +Participation in this group is open to all UEFI members. + + - ACPI based CPU topology + - ACPI based Power management + - CPU idle control based on PSCI + - CPU performance control (CPPC) + - ACPI based SMMU + - ITS support for GIC in MADT + +No code shall be accepted into the kernel unless it complies with the released +standards from UEFI ASWG. If there are features missing from ACPI to make it +function on a platform, ECRs should be submitted to ASWG and go through the +approval process.