Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-150601-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:52:51 -0700
From: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
CC: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Bjorn Andersson
	<andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        "Sebastian
 Reichel" <sre@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com>,
        "Lorenzo
 Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
        "Satya Durga Srinivasu
 Prabhala" <quic_satyap@quicinc.com>,
        Melody Olvera
	<quic_molvera@quicinc.com>,
        Shivendra Pratap <quic_spratap@quicinc.com>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Implement vendor resets for PSCI SYSTEM_RESET2
Message-ID: <20240418104330754-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com>
References: <20240414-arm-psci-system_reset2-vendor-reboots-v2-0-da9a055a648f@quicinc.com>
 <Zh5GWqt2oCNHdF_h@bogus>
 <20240417140957985-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com>
 <fda6e9f8-5c86-4e8f-a40b-986708e1b03b@broadcom.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fda6e9f8-5c86-4e8f-a40b-986708e1b03b@broadcom.com>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:01:00PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 4/17/24 14:54, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:35:22AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 12:30:23PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> > > > The PSCI SYSTEM_RESET2 call allows vendor firmware to define additional
> > > > reset types which could be mapped to the reboot argument.
> > > > 
> > > > Setting up reboot on Qualcomm devices can be inconsistent from chipset
> > > > to chipset.
> > > 
> > > That doesn't sound good. Do you mean PSCI SYSTEM_RESET doesn't work as
> > > expected ? Does it mean it is not conformant to the specification ?
> > > 
> > 
> > I was motivating the reason for using SYSTEM_RESET2. How to set the PMIC
> > register and IMEM cookie can change between chipsets. Using
> > SYSTEM_RESET2 alows us to abstract how to perform the reset.
> > 
> > > > Generally, there is a PMIC register that gets written to
> > > > decide the reboot type. There is also sometimes a cookie that can be
> > > > written to indicate that the bootloader should behave differently than a
> > > > regular boot. These knobs evolve over product generations and require
> > > > more drivers. Qualcomm firmwares are beginning to expose vendor
> > > > SYSTEM_RESET2 types to simplify driver requirements from Linux.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Why can't this be fully userspace driven ? What is the need to keep the
> > > cookie in the DT ?
> > 
> > As Dmitry pointed out, this information isn't discoverable. I suppose
> > we could technically use bootconfig or kernel command-line to convey the
> > map although I think devicetree is the right spot for this mapping.
> > 
> > - Other vendor-specific bits for PSCI are described in the devicetree.
> >    One example is the suspend param (e.g. the StateID) for cpu idle
> >    states.
> > - Describing firmware bits in the DT isn't unprecedented, and putting
> >    this information outside the DT means that other OSes (besides Linux)
> >    need their own way to convey this information.
> > - PSCI would be the odd one out that reboot mode map is not described in
> >    DT. Other reboot-mode drivers specify the mapping in the DT. Userspace
> >    that runs with firmware that support vendor reset2 need to make sure
> >    they can configure the mapping early enough.
> 
> FWIW, I read Sudeep's response as being specifically inquiring about the
> 'cookie' parameter, do you see a need for that to be in described in the DT
> or could that just be an user-space parameter that is conveyed through the
> reboot system call?

Ah, I had thought the ask was for the reboot type as well as the cookie.
We don't do this for hardware-based reboot mode cookies and I didn't see
why we should ask userspace to do something different for PSCI.
It seems to me that SYSTEM_RESET2 fits nicely with the existing design
for reboot-mode bindings.