[PATCH v2 05/18] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse FADT table to get PSCI flags for PSCI init
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: 2014-08-18 14:27:21
Also in:
linux-acpi
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 04:28:12PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
There are two flags: PSCI_COMPLIANT and PSCI_USE_HVC. When set, the former signals to the OS that the hardware is PSCI compliant.
Actually it signals that the firmware is PSCI compliant. The hardware doesn't care much.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h index 6400312..6e04868 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h@@ -19,6 +19,18 @@ extern int acpi_disabled; extern int acpi_noirq; extern int acpi_pci_disabled; +/* 1 to indicate PSCI 0.2+ is implemented */ +static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) +{ + return !!(acpi_gbl_FADT.arm_boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_PSCI_COMPLIANT); +} + +/* 1 to indicate HVC must be used instead of SMC as the PSCI conduit */ +static inline bool acpi_psci_use_hvc(void) +{ + return !!(acpi_gbl_FADT.arm_boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_PSCI_USE_HVC); +}
Do we actually need !! here? Shouldn't the compiler figure out conversion to bool automatically?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c index 9cf9127..69a315d 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ * published by the Free Software Foundation. */ +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI: " fmt + #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/acpi.h> #include <linux/cpumask.h>@@ -47,6 +49,26 @@ void __init __acpi_unmap_table(char *map, unsigned long size) early_memunmap(map, size); } +static int __init acpi_parse_fadt(struct acpi_table_header *table) +{ + struct acpi_table_fadt *fadt = (struct acpi_table_fadt *)table; + + /* + * Revision in table header is the FADT Major version, + * and there is a minor version of FADT which was introduced + * by ACPI 5.1, we only deal with ACPI 5.1 or higher version + * to get arm boot flags, or we will disable ACPI. + */ + if (table->revision < 5 || fadt->minor_revision < 1) {
If we ever get revision 6.0, this would trigger.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c index 85c6326..dfc4e4f3 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c@@ -395,6 +395,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) efi_idmap_init(); cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK; + acpi_boot_init(); + unflatten_device_tree();
Unless that's changed in a subsequent patch, do we still need to call unflatten_device_tree() if ACPI was successful?
psci_init();
I would also rename this to something like psci_dt_init() and move the acpi_disabled check here rather than in the callee. -- Catalin