| Message ID | 20230303133647.845095-1-sunilvl@ventanamicro.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add basic ACPI support for RISC-V | expand |
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:51:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > Hey Sunil, > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:27PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > This patch series enables the basic ACPI infrastructure for RISC-V. > > Supporting external interrupt controllers is in progress and hence it is > > tested using poll based HVC SBI console and RAM disk. > > > > The first patch in this series is one of the patch from Jisheng's > > series [1] which is not merged yet. This patch is required to support > > ACPI since efi_init() which gets called before sbi_init() can enable > > static branches and hits a panic. > > > > Patch 2 and 3 are ACPICA patches which are not merged into acpica yet > > but a PR is raised already. > > > > Below are two ECRs approved by ASWG. > > RINTC - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R6k4MshhN3WTT-hwqAquu5nX6xSEqK2l/view > > RHCT - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nP3nFiH4jkPMp6COOxP6123DCZKR-tia/view > > > > The series depends on Anup's IPI improvement series [2]. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220821140918.3613-1-jszhang@kernel.org/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230103141221.772261-7-apatel@ventanamicro.com/T/ > > Building a clang-15 allmodconfig (I didn't try gcc) with this series, and > Anup's IPI bits, results in a broken build, due to failings in cmpxchg: > > /stuff/linux/drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c:61:25: error: call to __compiletime_assert_335 declared with 'error' attribute: BUILD_BUG failed > while (unlikely((ret = cmpxchg(&c->value, old, new)) != old)) { > ^ Hi Conor, I am able to build without any of these issues using clang-15. I am wondering whether the base is proper. I had rebased on top of the master and couple of patches from IPI series were already merged in the master. Do you mind verifying with my branch https://github.com/vlsunil/linux/commits/acpi_b1_us_review_ipi17_V3? Or if you could provide me your branch details, I can look further. Thanks! Sunil
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:08 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 06:44:35PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 06:13:22AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 7 March 2023 05:06:16 GMT, Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > > >On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:51:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > >> Hey Sunil, > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:27PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > > >> > This patch series enables the basic ACPI infrastructure for RISC-V. > > > >> > Supporting external interrupt controllers is in progress and hence it is > > > >> > tested using poll based HVC SBI console and RAM disk. > > > >> > > > > >> > The first patch in this series is one of the patch from Jisheng's > > > >> > series [1] which is not merged yet. This patch is required to support > > > >> > ACPI since efi_init() which gets called before sbi_init() can enable > > > >> > static branches and hits a panic. > > > >> > > > > >> > Patch 2 and 3 are ACPICA patches which are not merged into acpica yet > > > >> > but a PR is raised already. > > > >> > > > > >> > Below are two ECRs approved by ASWG. > > > >> > RINTC - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R6k4MshhN3WTT-hwqAquu5nX6xSEqK2l/view > > > >> > RHCT - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nP3nFiH4jkPMp6COOxP6123DCZKR-tia/view > > > >> > > > > >> > The series depends on Anup's IPI improvement series [2]. > > > >> > > > > >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220821140918.3613-1-jszhang@kernel.org/ > > > >> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230103141221.772261-7-apatel@ventanamicro.com/T/ > > > >> > > > >> Building a clang-15 allmodconfig (I didn't try gcc) with this series, and > > > >> Anup's IPI bits, results in a broken build, due to failings in cmpxchg: > > > >> > > > >> /stuff/linux/drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c:61:25: error: call to __compiletime_assert_335 declared with 'error' attribute: BUILD_BUG failed > > > >> while (unlikely((ret = cmpxchg(&c->value, old, new)) != old)) { > > > >> ^ > > > > > > I am able to build without any of these issues using clang-15. I am > > > > wondering whether the base is proper. I had rebased on top of the master > > > > and couple of patches from IPI series were already merged in the master. > > > > > > > > Do you mind verifying with my branch > > > > https://github.com/vlsunil/linux/commits/acpi_b1_us_review_ipi17_V3? > > > > > > I can check that later I suppose. > > > > That's broken too. > > > > > > Or if you could provide me your branch details, I can look further. > > > > > > 6.3-rc1, with both series applied, sans Anups applied patches. > > > > I've pushed my stuff here, but unlikely that it makes any odds since > > your branch experiences the same build issue. > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/ borked-acpi-surface > > > > My build commands are wrapped in a script, but it's an LLVM=1 > > allmodconfig run w/ clang-15(.0.7) etc. > > > Ahh allmodconfig. Thank you very much!. I can reproduce the failure. Let > me look further and fix in next revision. > > Thanks! > Sunil Hi Sunil One question regarding PMU in ACPI flow. We use DT to decode the supported HPM counters/events for the different platforms now. How do we enable PMU (drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c) when using ACPI method? Note, this might be in separate patch series. Regards Ley Foon
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 02:35:19PM +0800, Ley Foon Tan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:08 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 06:44:35PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 06:13:22AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 March 2023 05:06:16 GMT, Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > > > >On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:51:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > >> Hey Sunil, > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:27PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > > > >> > This patch series enables the basic ACPI infrastructure for RISC-V. > > > > >> > Supporting external interrupt controllers is in progress and hence it is > > > > >> > tested using poll based HVC SBI console and RAM disk. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The first patch in this series is one of the patch from Jisheng's > > > > >> > series [1] which is not merged yet. This patch is required to support > > > > >> > ACPI since efi_init() which gets called before sbi_init() can enable > > > > >> > static branches and hits a panic. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Patch 2 and 3 are ACPICA patches which are not merged into acpica yet > > > > >> > but a PR is raised already. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Below are two ECRs approved by ASWG. > > > > >> > RINTC - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R6k4MshhN3WTT-hwqAquu5nX6xSEqK2l/view > > > > >> > RHCT - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nP3nFiH4jkPMp6COOxP6123DCZKR-tia/view > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The series depends on Anup's IPI improvement series [2]. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220821140918.3613-1-jszhang@kernel.org/ > > > > >> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230103141221.772261-7-apatel@ventanamicro.com/T/ > > > > >> > > > > >> Building a clang-15 allmodconfig (I didn't try gcc) with this series, and > > > > >> Anup's IPI bits, results in a broken build, due to failings in cmpxchg: > > > > >> > > > > >> /stuff/linux/drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c:61:25: error: call to __compiletime_assert_335 declared with 'error' attribute: BUILD_BUG failed > > > > >> while (unlikely((ret = cmpxchg(&c->value, old, new)) != old)) { > > > > >> ^ > > > > > > > > I am able to build without any of these issues using clang-15. I am > > > > > wondering whether the base is proper. I had rebased on top of the master > > > > > and couple of patches from IPI series were already merged in the master. > > > > > > > > > > Do you mind verifying with my branch > > > > > https://github.com/vlsunil/linux/commits/acpi_b1_us_review_ipi17_V3? > > > > > > > > I can check that later I suppose. > > > > > > That's broken too. > > > > > > > > Or if you could provide me your branch details, I can look further. > > > > > > > > 6.3-rc1, with both series applied, sans Anups applied patches. > > > > > > I've pushed my stuff here, but unlikely that it makes any odds since > > > your branch experiences the same build issue. > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/ borked-acpi-surface > > > > > > My build commands are wrapped in a script, but it's an LLVM=1 > > > allmodconfig run w/ clang-15(.0.7) etc. > > > > > Ahh allmodconfig. Thank you very much!. I can reproduce the failure. Let > > me look further and fix in next revision. > > > > Thanks! > > Sunil > > Hi Sunil > > One question regarding PMU in ACPI flow. > > We use DT to decode the supported HPM counters/events for the > different platforms now. > How do we enable PMU (drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c) when using ACPI method? > Note, this might be in separate patch series. > Hi Lay Foon, This driver uses SBI calls and hence should work in case of ACPI also. There is one minor change required in this driver for overflow interrupt. I have a patch for that in future series. Thanks, Sunil
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:24 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 02:35:19PM +0800, Ley Foon Tan wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 9:08 AM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 06:44:35PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 06:13:22AM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 March 2023 05:06:16 GMT, Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > > > > >On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:51:09PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > >> Hey Sunil, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:27PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote: > > > > > >> > This patch series enables the basic ACPI infrastructure for RISC-V. > > > > > >> > Supporting external interrupt controllers is in progress and hence it is > > > > > >> > tested using poll based HVC SBI console and RAM disk. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The first patch in this series is one of the patch from Jisheng's > > > > > >> > series [1] which is not merged yet. This patch is required to support > > > > > >> > ACPI since efi_init() which gets called before sbi_init() can enable > > > > > >> > static branches and hits a panic. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Patch 2 and 3 are ACPICA patches which are not merged into acpica yet > > > > > >> > but a PR is raised already. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Below are two ECRs approved by ASWG. > > > > > >> > RINTC - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R6k4MshhN3WTT-hwqAquu5nX6xSEqK2l/view > > > > > >> > RHCT - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nP3nFiH4jkPMp6COOxP6123DCZKR-tia/view > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > The series depends on Anup's IPI improvement series [2]. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220821140918.3613-1-jszhang@kernel.org/ > > > > > >> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230103141221.772261-7-apatel@ventanamicro.com/T/ > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Building a clang-15 allmodconfig (I didn't try gcc) with this series, and > > > > > >> Anup's IPI bits, results in a broken build, due to failings in cmpxchg: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> /stuff/linux/drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c:61:25: error: call to __compiletime_assert_335 declared with 'error' attribute: BUILD_BUG failed > > > > > >> while (unlikely((ret = cmpxchg(&c->value, old, new)) != old)) { > > > > > >> ^ > > > > > > > > > > I am able to build without any of these issues using clang-15. I am > > > > > > wondering whether the base is proper. I had rebased on top of the master > > > > > > and couple of patches from IPI series were already merged in the master. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mind verifying with my branch > > > > > > https://github.com/vlsunil/linux/commits/acpi_b1_us_review_ipi17_V3? > > > > > > > > > > I can check that later I suppose. > > > > > > > > That's broken too. > > > > > > > > > > Or if you could provide me your branch details, I can look further. > > > > > > > > > > 6.3-rc1, with both series applied, sans Anups applied patches. > > > > > > > > I've pushed my stuff here, but unlikely that it makes any odds since > > > > your branch experiences the same build issue. > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/conor/linux.git/ borked-acpi-surface > > > > > > > > My build commands are wrapped in a script, but it's an LLVM=1 > > > > allmodconfig run w/ clang-15(.0.7) etc. > > > > > > > Ahh allmodconfig. Thank you very much!. I can reproduce the failure. Let > > > me look further and fix in next revision. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Sunil > > > > Hi Sunil > > > > One question regarding PMU in ACPI flow. > > > > We use DT to decode the supported HPM counters/events for the > > different platforms now. > > How do we enable PMU (drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c) when using ACPI method? > > Note, this might be in separate patch series. > > > Hi Lay Foon, > > This driver uses SBI calls and hence should work in case of ACPI also. > > There is one minor change required in this driver for overflow > interrupt. I have a patch for that in future series. Just to add further clarification: OpenSBI will continue to use the device tree so that the firmware will have access to all the PMU details. > > Thanks, > Sunil
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 10:45 AM Atish Kumar Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Sunil > > > > > > One question regarding PMU in ACPI flow. > > > > > > We use DT to decode the supported HPM counters/events for the > > > different platforms now. > > > How do we enable PMU (drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c) when using ACPI method? > > > Note, this might be in separate patch series. > > > > > Hi Lay Foon, > > > > This driver uses SBI calls and hence should work in case of ACPI also. > > > > There is one minor change required in this driver for overflow > > interrupt. I have a patch for that in future series. > > Just to add further clarification: OpenSBI will continue to use the > device tree so that > the firmware will have access to all the PMU details. > Sorry for the late reply, missed out on this email in my kernel.org mailbox. Do you mean OpenSBI still using the device tree, but EDK II and Linux using the ACPI table? Normally Linux shouldn't mix between ACPI and device tree. Regards Ley Foon
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 1:38 PM Ley Foon Tan <lftan@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 10:45 AM Atish Kumar Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sunil > > > > > > > > One question regarding PMU in ACPI flow. > > > > > > > > We use DT to decode the supported HPM counters/events for the > > > > different platforms now. > > > > How do we enable PMU (drivers/perf/riscv_pmu_sbi.c) when using ACPI method? > > > > Note, this might be in separate patch series. > > > > > > > Hi Lay Foon, > > > > > > This driver uses SBI calls and hence should work in case of ACPI also. > > > > > > There is one minor change required in this driver for overflow > > > interrupt. I have a patch for that in future series. > > > > Just to add further clarification: OpenSBI will continue to use the > > device tree so that > > the firmware will have access to all the PMU details. > > > Sorry for the late reply, missed out on this email in my kernel.org mailbox. > > Do you mean OpenSBI still using the device tree, but EDK II and Linux > using the ACPI table? Normally Linux shouldn't mix between ACPI and Yes. For Linux, it will only be ACPI. Otherwise, we have to define all those bindings in ACPI as well. In the future, we will have supervisor counter delegation ISA extension(in progress) that allows the kernel to directly program the hpmevents & modify counters without needing SBI PMU extension. > device tree. > > Regards > Ley Foon > > _______________________________________________ > linux-riscv mailing list > linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv