Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752845Ab3G0XVw (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:21:52 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:43997 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751614Ab3G0XVt (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:21:49 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Ben Guthro Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Jan Beulich , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Richard L Maliszewski , Gang Wei , Shane Wang , Bob Moore , "tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] Xen/ACPI: support sleep state entering on hardware reduced systems Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 01:31:52 +0200 Message-ID: <4416509.Jzyj46NPce@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.10.0+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2A50FCBD-CD54-4C8D-A780-1CA7ACBC4E0B@citrix.com> References: <1372345323-9266-1-git-send-email-benjamin.guthro@citrix.com> <2455068.P7gO5JL6M7@vostro.rjw.lan> <2A50FCBD-CD54-4C8D-A780-1CA7ACBC4E0B@citrix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3803 Lines: 89 On Saturday, July 27, 2013 03:33:31 PM Ben Guthro wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:01:58 AM Ben Guthro wrote: > >> In version 3.4 acpi_os_prepare_sleep() got introduced in parallel with > >> reduced hardware sleep support, and the two changes didn't get > >> synchronized: The new code doesn't call the hook function (if so > >> requested). Fix this, requiring a boolean parameter to be added to the > >> hook function to distinguish "extended" from "legacy" sleep. > >> > >> This requires adjusting TXT, but the adjustments only go as far as > >> failing the extended mode call (since, looking at the TXT interface, > >> there doesn't even appear to be precautions to deal with that > >> alternative interface). > >> > >> The hypervisor change underlying this is commit 62d1a69 ("ACPI: support > >> v5 (reduced HW) sleep interface") on the master branch of > >> git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ben Guthro > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich > >> Cc: Richard L Maliszewski > >> Cc: Gang Wei > >> Cc: Shane Wang > >> Cc: Bob Moore > >> Cc: Rafaell J. Wysocki > >> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > >> Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> > >> v2: Extend description to include reference to hypervisor side change > >> v3: Split into multiple patches, separating subsystems > >> Remove bool parameters, in favor of u8 > >> v4: Remove linux/acpi.h dependencies > >> Further patch split to break out acpica from OSL > >> More bool vs u8 fixes > >> > >> Ben Guthro (5): > >> acpi: Remove need to include linux/acpi.h in common acpica code > >> acpi: Call acpi_os_prepare_sleep hook in reduced hardware sleep path > >> acpi: Adjust linux acpi OS functions to new extended parameter > >> x86/tboot: Fail extended mode reduced hardware sleep > >> xen/acpi: notify xen when reduced hardware sleep is available > > > > The ongoing discussion means to me that the ACPICA maintainers don't want > > acpi_os_prepare_sleep() and quite frankly I understand them, because ACPICA > > is about implementing the spec and not about things beyond it. > > > > This means that patch [1/5] goes away. > > > > That said, at the same time we need to address the problem at hand, which > > is to make Xen work with the reduced HW sleep. > > > > For that, I don't honestly think that modifying acpi_os_prepare_sleep() the > > way the patchset is doing it is appropriate and the change of the meaning of > > the arguments is simply disgusting. > > > > To me, it would be much cleaner to add acpi_os_prepare_extended_sleep() > > specifically to be called by acpi_hw_extended_sleep() and make tboot and Xen > > use that. > > > > This way or another, we'll need to live with one more divergence between the > > upstream ACPICA and the Linux ACPICA code because of that, but that'd be just > > a few added lines in acpi_hw_extended_sleep(), so I suppose it wouldn't be > > such a big deal. > > > > Ok, thank you for the review, and being open to addressing the problem at > hand, No problem, although I'm not exactly happy with it. > without a full architecture rework (not to say that that discussion is not > also needed) Sure, it is needed. > I will try to make some time next week to rework the patch set to address > these concerns, and submit a new series. Thanks! Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/