On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 07:26:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 7:32 AM Ricardo Neri
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Sat, May 3, 2025 at 9:10 PM Ricardo Neri
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The bootstrap processor uses acpi_wakeup_cpu() to indicate to firmware that
it wants to boot a secondary CPU using a mailbox as described in the
Multiprocessor Wakeup Structure of the ACPI specification.

The wakeup mailbox does not strictly require support from ACPI.

Well, except that it is defined by the ACPI specification.

That is true.

quoted

quoted

The platform firmware can implement a mailbox compatible in structure and
operation and enumerate it using other mechanisms such a DeviceTree graph.

So is there a specification defining this mechanism?

It is generally not sufficient to put the code and DT bindings
unilaterally into the OS and expect the firmware to follow suit.

This mechanism is described in the section 4.3.5 of the Intel TDX
Virtual Firmware Design Guide [1], but it refeers to the ACPI
specification for the interface.

Yes, it does.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Move the code used to setup and use the mailbox out of the ACPI
directory to use it when support for ACPI is not available or needed.

I think that the code implementing interfaces defined by the ACPI
specification is not generic and so it should not be built when the
kernel is configured without ACPI support.

Support for ACPI would not be used on systems describing hardware using
a DeviceTree graph. My goal is to have a common interface that both
DT and ACPI can use. I think what is missing is that common interface.

I get the general idea. :-)

quoted

Would it be preferred to have a separate implementation that is
functionally equivalent?

Functionally equivalent on the OS side, that is.

It would be better, but honestly I'm not sure if this is going to be
sufficient to eliminate the dependency on the ACPI spec.  It is just
as you want the firmware to implement this tiny bit of the ACPI spec
even though it is not implementing the rest of it.

Yes, that is all I need: the address of the mailbox and firmware that
implements the mailbox interface as described in the ACPI Multiprocessor
Structure.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo