Subject: [PATCH 19/19] Documentation: ACPI for ARM64

From: [email-masked] (Randy Dunlap)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:19:14 -0700

On 07/24/2014 02:16 PM, Naresh Bhat wrote:
> 
> On 24 July 2014 18:30, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory at linaro.org <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> 
>     Add documentation for the guidelines of how to use ACPI
>     on ARM64.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory at linaro.org <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org <mailto:[email-masked]>>
>     ---
>      Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt |  240 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>      1 file changed, 240 insertions(+)
>      create mode 100644 Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
> 
>     diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
>     new file mode 100644
>     index 0000000..12cd550
>     --- /dev/null
>     +++ b/Documentation/arm64/arm-acpi.txt
>     @@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
>     +ACPI on ARMv8 Servers
>     +---------------------
>     +
>     +ACPI will be used for ARMv8 general purpose servers designed to follow
>     +the SBSA specification (currently available to people with an ARM login at
>     +http://silver.arm.com)
>     +
>     +The implemented ACPI version is 5.1 + errata as released by the UEFI Forum,
>     +which is available at <http://www.uefi.org/acpi/specs>.
>     +
>     +If the machine does not meet these requirements then it is likely that Device
>     +Tree (DT) is more suitable for the hardware.
>     +
>     +Relationship with Device Tree
>     +-----------------------------
>     +
>     +ACPI support in drivers and subsystems for ARMv8 should never be mutually
>     +exclusive with DT support at compile time.
>     +
>     +At boot time the kernel will only use one description method depending on
>     +parameters passed from the bootloader.
>     +
>     +Regardless of whether DT or ACPI is used, the kernel must always be capable
>     +of booting with either scheme.
>     +
>     +When booting using ACPI tables the /chosen node in DT will still be parsed
>     +to extract the kernel command line and initrd path. No other section of
>     +the DT will be used.
>     +
>     +Booting using ACPI tables
>     +-------------------------
>     +
>     +Currently, the only defined method to pass ACPI tables to the kernel on ARMv8
>     +is via the UEFI system configuration table.
>     +
>     +The UEFI implementation MUST set the ACPI_20_TABLE_GUID to point to the
>     +RSDP table (the table with the ACPI signature "RSD PTR ").
>     +
>     +The pointer to the RSDP table will be retrieved from EFI by the ACPI core.
>     +
>     +Processing of ACPI tables may be disabled by passing acpi=off on the kernel
>     +command line.
>     +
>     +DO use an XSDT, RSDTs are deprecated and should not be used on arm64. They
>     +only allow for 32bit addresses.
>     +
>     +DO NOT use the 32-bit address fields in the FADT, they are deprecated, the
>     +64-bit alternatives MUST be used.
>     +
>     +The minimum set of tables MUST include RSDP, XSDT, FACS, FADT, DSDT, MADT
>     +and GTDT. If PCI is used the MCFG table MUST also be present.
>     +
>     +ACPI Detection
>     +--------------
>     +
>     +Drivers should determine their probe() type by checking for ACPI_HANDLE,
>     +or .of_node, or other information in the device structure. This is
>     +detailed further in the "Driver Recomendations" section.
>     +
>     +If the presence of ACPI needs to be detected at runtime, then check the value
>     +of acpi_disabled. If CONFIG_ACPI not being set acpi_disabled will always be 1.
>     +
>     +Device Enumeration
>     +------------------
>     +
>     +Device descriptions in ACPI should use standard recognised ACPI interfaces.
> 
> 
> recognized

Yeah, I saw all of these also, but we accept British or American spelling of these words.

>  
> 
>     +These are far simpler than the information provided via Device Tree. Drivers
>     +should take into account this simplicity and work with sensible defaults.
>     +
>     +On no account should a Device Tree attempt to be replicated in ASL using such
>     +constructs as Name(KEY0, "Value1") type constructs. Additional driver specific
>     +data should be passed in the appropriate _DSM (ACPI Section 9.14.1) method or
>     +_DSD (ACPI Section 6.2.5). This data should be rare and not OS specific.
>     +
>     +Common _DSD bindings should be submitted to ASWG to be included in the
>     +document :-
>     +
>     +http://www.uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/_DSD-implementation-guide-toplevel.htm
>     +
>     +TODO: Clarification and examples from Juno implementation.
>     +
>     +Programmable Power Control Resources
>     +------------------------------------
>     +
>     +Programmable power control resources include such resources as voltage/current
>     +providers (regulators) and clock sources.
>     +
>     +For power control of these resources they should be represented with Power
>     +Resource Objects (ACPI Section 7.1). The ACPI core will then handle correctly
>     +enabling/disabling of resources as they are needed.
>     +
>     +There exists in the ACPI 5.1 specification no standard binding for these objects
>     +to enable programmable levels or rates so this should be avoid if possible and
>     +the resources set to appropriate level by the firmware. If this is not possible
>     +then any manipulation should be abstracted in ASL.
>     +
>     +Each device in ACPI has D-states and these can be controlled through
>     +the optional methods _PS0..._PS3 where _PS0 is full on and _PS3 is full off.
>     +
>     +If either _PS0 or _PS3 is implemented, then the other method must also be
>     +implemented.
>     +
>     +If a device requires usage or setup of a power resource when on, the ASL
>     +should organise that it is allocated/enabled using the _PS0 method.
> 
>  
> organize
> 
>     +
>     +Resources allocated/enabled in the _PS0 method should be disabled/de-allocated
>     +in the _PS3 method.
>     +
>     +Such code in _PS? methods will of course be very platform specific but
>     +should allow the driver to operate the device without special non standard
>     +values being read from ASL. Further, abstracting the use of these resources
>     +allows hardware revisions without requiring updates to the kernel.
>     +
>     +TODO: Clarification and examples from Juno implementation.
>     +
>     +Clocks
>     +------
>     +
>     +Like clocks that are part of the power resources there is no standard way
>     +to represent a clock tree in ACPI 5.1 in a similar manner to how it is
>     +described in DT.
>     +
>     +Devices affected by this include things like UARTs, SoC driven LCD displays,
>     +etc.
>     +
>     +The firmware for example UEFI should initialise these clocks to fixed working
> 
> 
> initialize
>  
> 
>     +values before the kernel is executed. If a driver requires to know rates of
>     +clocks set by firmware then they can be passed to kernel using _DSD.
>     +
>     +example :-
>     +
>     +Device (CLK0) {
>     +       ...
>     +
>     +       Name (_DSD, Package() {
>     +               ToUUID("XXXXX"),
>     +               Package() {
>     +                       Package(2) {"#clock-cells", 0},
>     +                       Package(2) {"clock-frequency", "10000"}
>     +               }
>     +       })
>     +
>     +       ...
>     +}
>     +
>     +Device (USR1) {
>     +       ...
>     +
>     +       Name (_DSD, Package() {
>     +               ToUUID("XXXXX"),
>     +               Package() {
>     +                       Package(2) {"clocks", Package() {1, ^CLK0}}},
>     +               }
>     +       })
>     +
>     +       ...
>     +}
>     +
>     +Driver Recommendations
>     +----------------------
>     +
>     +DO NOT remove any FDT handling when adding ACPI support for a driver, different
>     +systems may use the same device.
>     +
>     +DO try and keep complex sections of ACPI and DT functionality seperate. This
> 
> 
> separate
>  
> 
>     +may mean a patch to break out some complex DT to another function before
>     +the patch to add ACPI. This may happen in other functions but is most likely
>     +in probe function. This gives a clearer flow of data for reviewing driver
>     +source.
>     +
>     +probe() :-
>     +
>     +TODO: replace this with a specific real example from Juno?
>     +
>     +static int device_probe_dt(struct platform_device *pdev)
>     +{
>     +       /* DT specific functionality */
>     +       ...
>     +}
>     +
>     +static int device_probe_acpi(struct platform_device *pdev)
>     +{
>     +       /* ACPI specific functionality */
>     +       ...
>     +}
>     +
>     +static int device_probe(stuct platform_device *pdev)
>     +{
>     +       ...
>     +       acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev);
>     +       struct device_node node = pdev->dev.of_node;
>     +       ...
>     +
>     +       if (node)
>     +               ret = device_probe_dt(pdev);
>     +       else if (handle)
>     +               ret = device_probe_acpi(pdev);
>     +       else
>     +               /* other initialisation */
> 
> 
> initialization
>  
> 
>     +               ...
>     +       /* Continue with any generic probe operations */
>     +       ...
>     +}
>     +
>     +DO keep the MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE entries together in the driver to make it clear
>     +the different names the driver is probed for, both from DT and from ACPI.
>     +
>     +module device tables :-
>     +
>     +static struct of_device_id virtio_mmio_match[] = {
>     +        { .compatible = "virtio,mmio", },
>     +        {},
>     +};
>     +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, virtio_mmio_match);
>     +
>     +static const struct acpi_device_id virtio_mmio_acpi_match[] = {
>     +        { "LNRO0005", },
>     +        { }
>     +};
>     +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(acpi, virtio_mmio_acpi_match);
>     +
>     +TODO: Add any other helpful rules that develop from Juno ACPI work.
>     +
>     +ASWG
>     +----
>     +
>     +The following areas are not yet well defined for ARM in the current ACPI
>     +specification and are expected to be worked through in the UEFI ACPI
>     +Specification Working Group (ASWG) <http://www.uefi.org/workinggroups>.
>     +Participation in this group is open to all UEFI members.
>     +
>     +       - ACPI based CPU topology
>     +       - ACPI based Power management
>     +       - CPU idle control based on PSCI
>     +       - CPU performance control (CPPC)
>     +
>     +No code shall be accepted into the kernel unless it complies with the released
>     +standards from UEFI ASWG. If there are features missing from ACPI to make it
>     +function on a platform ECRs should be submitted to ASWG and go through the
>     +approval process.
>     --
>     1.7.9.5
> 
> 

-- 
~Randy