Subject: [PATCH v3 13/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Add GICv2 specific ACPI boot support

From: [email-masked] (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:30:52 +0100

On 02/09/14 16:45, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2014?09?02? 21:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 02/09/14 12:48, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
>>> On 01.09.2014 19:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/14 15:57, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>> From: Tomasz Nowicki <[email-masked]>
>>>>>
>>>>> ACPI kernel uses MADT table for proper GIC initialization. It needs to
>>>>> parse GIC related subtables, collect CPU interface and distributor
>>>>> addresses and call driver initialization function (which is hardware
>>>>> abstraction agnostic). In a similar way, FDT initialize GICv1/2.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE: This commit allow to initialize GICv1/2 only.
>>>> I cannot help but notice that there is no support for KVM here. It'd be
>>>> good to add a note to that effect, so that people do not expect
>>>> virtualization support to be working when booting with ACPI.
>>> yes, it is worth mentioning!
>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <[email-masked]>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <[email-masked]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h        |    2 -
>>>>>   arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c             |   23 +++++++
>>>>>   arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c              |    5 ++
>>>>>   drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c            |  114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>   include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h |   33 ++++++++++
>>>>>   5 files changed, 175 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>   create mode 100644 include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> index a867467..5d2ab63 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -97,8 +97,6 @@ void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void);
>>>>>   extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>>>>>   #define acpi_wakeup_address 0
>>>>>
>>>>> -#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES 65535
>>>>> -
>>>>>   #else
>>>>>
>>>>>   static inline bool acpi_psci_present(void) { return false; }
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> index 354b912..b3b82b0 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
>>>>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>>>>   #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/bootmem.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/smp.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>   #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>>   #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
>>>>> @@ -313,6 +314,28 @@ void __init acpi_boot_table_init(void)
>>>>>              pr_err("Can't find FADT or error happened during parsing FADT\n");
>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>> +void __init acpi_gic_init(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct acpi_table_header *table;
>>>>> +    acpi_status status;
>>>>> +    acpi_size tbl_size;
>>>>> +    int err;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    status = acpi_get_table_with_size(ACPI_SIG_MADT, 0, &table, &tbl_size);
>>>>> +    if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
>>>>> +            const char *msg = acpi_format_exception(status);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +            pr_err("Failed to get MADT table, %s\n", msg);
>>>>> +            return;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>>> +    if (err)
>>>>> +            pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>>> What will happen when you get to implement GICv3 support? Another entry
>>>> like this? Why isn't this entirely contained in the GIC driver? Do I
>>>> sound like a stuck record?
>>> There will be another call to GICv3 init:
>>> [...]
>>>         err = gic_v3_acpi_init(table);
>>>         if (err)
>>>                 err = gic_v2_acpi_init(table);
>>>         if (err)
>>>                 pr_err("Failed to initialize GIC IRQ controller");
>>> [...]
>>> This is the main reason I put common code here.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    early_acpi_os_unmap_memory((char *)table, tbl_size);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>   /*
>>>>>    * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
>>>>>    *
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> index 0f08dfd..c074d60 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c
>>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>>>>>   #include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/seq_file.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>   unsigned long irq_err_count;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ void __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *))
>>>>>   void __init init_IRQ(void)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>      irqchip_init();
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>> +            acpi_gic_init();
>>>>> +
>>>> Why isn't this called from irqchip_init? It would seem like the logical
>>>> spot to probe an interrupt controller.
>>> irqchip.c is OF dependent, I want to decouple these from the very
>>> beginning.
>> No. irqchip.c is not OF dependent, it is just that DT is the only thing
>> we support so far. I don't think duplicating the kernel infrastructure
>> "because we're different" is the right way.
>>
>> There is no reason for your probing structure to be artificially
>> different (you're parsing the same information, at the same time). Just
>> put in place a similar probing mechanism, and this will look a lot better.
>>
>>>>>      if (!handle_arch_irq)
>>>>>              panic("No interrupt controller found.");
>>>>>   }
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> index 4b959e6..85cbf43 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>> @@ -33,12 +33,14 @@
>>>>>   #include <linux/of.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/of_address.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/irqdomain.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/percpu.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>>>>   #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>   #include <asm/cputype.h>
>>>>>   #include <asm/irq.h>
>>>>> @@ -1029,3 +1031,115 @@ IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init);
>>>>>   IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init);
>>>>>
>>>>>   #endif
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +static u64 dist_phy_base, cpu_phy_base = ULONG_MAX;
>>>> Please use phys_addr_t for physical addresses. The use of ULONG_MAX
>>>> looks dodgy. Please have a proper symbol to flag the fact that it hasn't
>>>> been assigned yet.
>>> Sure, will do.
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> +                    const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor;
>>>>> +    u64 gic_cpu_base;
>>>> phys_addr_t
>>>>
>>>>> +    processor = (struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(processor, end))
>>>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    gic_cpu_base = processor->base_address;
>>>>> +    if (!gic_cpu_base)
>>>>> +            return -EFAULT;
>>>> Is zero an invalid address?
>>> Yeah, good point.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * There is no support for non-banked GICv1/2 register in ACPI spec.
>>>>> +     * All CPU interface addresses have to be the same.
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    if (cpu_phy_base != ULONG_MAX && gic_cpu_base != cpu_phy_base)
>>>>> +            return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    cpu_phy_base = gic_cpu_base;
>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int __init
>>>>> +gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor(struct acpi_subtable_header *header,
>>>>> +                            const unsigned long end)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *dist;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    dist = (struct acpi_madt_generic_distributor *)header;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (BAD_MADT_ENTRY(dist, end))
>>>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    dist_phy_base = dist->base_address;
>>>>> +    if (!dist_phy_base)
>>>>> +            return -EFAULT;
>>>> Same question about zero.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int __init
>>>>> +gic_v2_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    void __iomem *cpu_base, *dist_base;
>>>>> +    int count;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /* Collect CPU base addresses */
>>>>> +    count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> +                               gic_acpi_parse_madt_cpu, table,
>>>>> +                               ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_INTERRUPT,
>>>>> +                               ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES);
>>>>> +    if (count < 0) {
>>>>> +            pr_err("Error during GICC entries parsing\n");
>>>>> +            return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +    } else if (!count) {
>>>>> +            /* No GICC entries provided, use address from MADT header */
>>>>> +            struct acpi_table_madt *madt = (struct acpi_table_madt *)table;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +            if (!madt->address)
>>>>> +                    return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +            cpu_phy_base = (u64)madt->address;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * Find distributor base address. We expect one distributor entry since
>>>>> +     * ACPI 5.1 spec neither support multi-GIC instances nor GIC cascade.
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    count = acpi_parse_entries(sizeof(struct acpi_table_madt),
>>>>> +                               gic_acpi_parse_madt_distributor, table,
>>>>> +                               ACPI_MADT_TYPE_GENERIC_DISTRIBUTOR,
>>>>> +                               ACPI_MAX_GIC_DISTRIBUTOR_ENTRIES);
>>>>> +    if (count <= 0) {
>>>>> +            pr_err("Error during GICD entries parsing\n");
>>>>> +            return -EFAULT;
>>>>> +    } else if (count > 1) {
>>>>> +            pr_err("More than one GICD entry detected\n");
>>>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    cpu_base = ioremap(cpu_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_CPU_IF_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> +    if (!cpu_base) {
>>>>> +            pr_err("Unable to map GICC registers\n");
>>>>> +            return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    dist_base = ioremap(dist_phy_base, ACPI_GIC_DIST_MEM_SIZE);
>>>>> +    if (!dist_base) {
>>>>> +            pr_err("Unable to map GICD registers\n");
>>>>> +            iounmap(cpu_base);
>>>>> +            return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * Initialize zero GIC instance (no multi-GIC support). Also, set GIC
>>>>> +     * as default IRQ domain to allow for GSI registration and GSI to IRQ
>>>>> +     * number translation (see acpi_register_gsi() and acpi_gsi_to_irq()).
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    gic_init_bases(0, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, 0, NULL);
>>>>> +    irq_set_default_host(gic_data[0].domain);
>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 0000000..ce2ae1a8
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-acpi.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2014, Linaro Ltd.
>>>>> + *  Author: Tomasz Nowicki <[email-masked]>
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>>>>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifndef ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +#define ARM_GIC_ACPI_H_
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>> Do we need linux/acpi.h here? You could have a separate forward
>>>> declaration of struct acpi_table_header, specially in the light of my
>>>> last remark below.
>>> Indeed, we can do forward declaration instead of #include
>>> <linux/acpi.h>. Thanks!
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>> +#define ACPI_MAX_GIC_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES  65535
>>>> With GICv2? I doubt it.
>>> I will create macro for each GIC driver:
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV2_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES    8
>>> #define ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES    65535
>> Where do you get this value (ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES) from?
> 
> This value is for max processors entries in MADT, and we will use it to scan MADT
> for SMP/GIC Init, I just make it big enough for GICv3/4. since ACPI core will stop
> scan MADT if the real numbers of processors entries are reached no matter
> how big ACPI_MAX_GICV3_CPU_INTERFACE_ENTRIES is, I think we can just
> define a number big enough then it will work (x86 and ia64 did the same thing).

Also, with GICv3++, there is no such thing as a memory-mapped CPU
interface anymore. What you get is a bunch of redistributors (one per
CPU). I assume what you have here actually describe the redistributors,
and its name should reflect that.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...