Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm_pmu: acpi: spe: Add initial MADT/SPE probing
To:     John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        lenb@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
        james.morse@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, linuxarm@huawei.com
References: <20190326223938.5365-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20190326223938.5365-4-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <2b53e957-6d36-fdfe-20e4-1664108c07ef@huawei.com>
From:   Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Message-ID: <b9081589-9c18-d298-e109-ca1d98627456@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 14:14:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2b53e957-6d36-fdfe-20e4-1664108c07ef@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

First thanks for taking a look at this, second sorry about the delay...

On 3/28/19 7:40 AM, John Garry wrote:
> On 26/03/2019 22:39, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> ACPI 6.3 adds additional fields to the MADT GICC
>> structure to describe SPE PPI's. We pick these out
>> of the cached reference to the madt_gicc structure
>> similarly to the core PMU code. We then create a platform
>> device referring to the IRQ and let the user/module loader
>> decide whether to load the SPE driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
>> ---
>> ?arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |? 3 ++
>> ?drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c?? | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> ?2 files changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h 
>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> index 7628efbe6c12..d10399b9f998 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>> @@ -41,6 +41,9 @@
>> ???? (!(entry) || (entry)->header.length < ACPI_MADT_GICC_MIN_LENGTH || \
>> ???? (unsigned long)(entry) + (entry)->header.length > (end))
>>
>> +#define ACPI_MADT_GICC_SPE? (ACPI_OFFSET(struct 
>> acpi_madt_generic_interrupt, \
>> +??? spe_interrupt) + sizeof(u16))
>> +
>> ?/* Basic configuration for ACPI */
>> ?#ifdef??? CONFIG_ACPI
>> ?pgprot_t __acpi_get_mem_attribute(phys_addr_t addr);
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
>> index 0f197516d708..a2418108eab2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c
>> @@ -74,6 +74,73 @@ static void arm_pmu_acpi_unregister_irq(int cpu)
>> ???? acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
>> ?}
>>
>> +static struct resource spe_resources[] = {
>> +??? {
>> +??????? /* irq */
>> +??????? .flags????????? = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
>> +??? }
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct platform_device spe_dev = {
>> +??? .name = "arm,spe-v1",
>> +??? .id = -1,
>> +??? .resource = spe_resources,
>> +??? .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(spe_resources)
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * For lack of a better place,
> 
> It seems that the kernel Image size can now increase due to this part of 
> SPE support even if ARM_SPE_PMU config is disabled.

That is true, but it should be fairly small.

> 
> And I don't even think that ARM_SPE_PMU depends on ARM_PMU (which 
> ARM_PMU_ACPI depends on).

Well I don't think we want the generic SPE_PMU dependent on ACPI. So 
this chunk of code could be wrapped in a SPE_PMU_ACPI block, and made 
dependent on PMU_ACPI. OTOH, It seems a little trivial for that, and 
maybe just tweaking the PMU_ACPI documentation to mention that it also 
enables ACPI/SPE is a better plan.

Opinions?


> 
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> hook the normal PMU MADT walk
>> + * and create a SPE device if we detect a recent MADT with
>> + * a homogeneous PPI mapping.
>> + */
>> +static int arm_spe_acpi_parse_irqs(void)
>> +{
>> +??? int cpu, ret, irq;
>> +??? int hetid;
>> +??? u16 gsi = 0;
>> +??? bool first = true;
>> +
>> +??? struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
>> +
>> +??? /*
>> +???? * sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt number
>> +???? * for now we only support homogeneous ACPI/SPE machines.
>> +???? */
>> +??? for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> +??????? gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
>> +
>> +??????? if (gicc->header.length < ACPI_MADT_GICC_SPE)
>> +??????????? return -ENODEV;
>> +??????? if (first) {
>> +??????????? gsi = gicc->spe_interrupt;
>> +??????????? if (!gsi)
>> +??????????????? return -ENODEV;
>> +??????????? hetid = find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu);
>> +??????????? first = false;
>> +??????? } else if ((gsi != gicc->spe_interrupt) ||
>> +?????????????? (hetid != find_acpi_cpu_topology_hetero_id(cpu))) {
>> +??????????? pr_warn("ACPI: SPE must be homogeneous\n");
>> +??????????? return -EINVAL;
>> +??????? }
>> +??? }
>> +
>> +??? irq = acpi_register_gsi(NULL, gsi, ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
>> +??????????????? ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH);
>> +??? if (irq < 0) {
>> +??????? pr_warn("ACPI: SPE Unable to register interrupt: %d\n", gsi);
>> +??????? return irq;
>> +??? }
>> +
>> +??? spe_resources[0].start = irq;
>> +??? ret = platform_device_register(&spe_dev);
>> +??? if (ret < 0) {
>> +??????? pr_warn("ACPI: SPE: Unable to register device\n");
>> +??????? acpi_unregister_gsi(gsi);
>> +??? }
>> +
>> +??? return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> ?static int arm_pmu_acpi_parse_irqs(void)
>> ?{
>> ???? int irq, cpu, irq_cpu, err;
>> @@ -279,6 +346,8 @@ static int arm_pmu_acpi_init(void)
>> ???? if (acpi_disabled)
>> ???????? return 0;
>>
>> +??? arm_spe_acpi_parse_irqs(); /* failures are expected */
>> +
>> ???? ret = arm_pmu_acpi_parse_irqs();
>> ???? if (ret)
>> ???????? return ret;
>>
> 
>