On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:21:06 +0000 Salil Mehta <salil.me...@opnsrc.net> wrote:
> Hi Igor, > > On 06/07/2024 14:28, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:56:45 +0100 > > Salil Mehta <salil.me...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > >> OSPM evaluates _EVT method to map the event. The CPU hotplug event > >> eventually > >> results in start of the CPU scan. Scan figures out the CPU and the kind of > >> event(plug/unplug) and notifies it back to the guest. Update the GED AML > >> _EVT > >> method with the call to \\_SB.CPUS.CSCN > >> > >> Also, macro CPU_SCAN_METHOD might be referred in other places like during > >> GED > >> intialization so it makes sense to have its definition placed in some > >> common > >> header file like cpu_hotplug.h. But doing this can cause compilation break > >> because of the conflicting macro definitions present in cpu.c and > >> cpu_hotplug.c > > one of the reasons is that you reusing legacy hw/acpi/cpu_hotplug.h, > > see below for suggestion. > ok > > > >> and because both these files get compiled due to historic reasons of x86 > >> world > >> i.e. decision to use legacy(GPE.2)/modern(GED) CPU hotplug interface > >> happens > >> during runtime [1]. To mitigate above, for now, declare a new common macro > >> ACPI_CPU_SCAN_METHOD for CPU scan method instead. > >> (This needs a separate discussion later on for clean-up) > >> > >> Reference: > >> [1] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/1463496205-251412-24-git-send-email-imamm...@redhat.com/ > >> > >> Co-developed-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqi...@huawei.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Keqian Zhu <zhukeqi...@huawei.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Salil Mehta <salil.me...@huawei.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.came...@huawei.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gs...@redhat.com> > >> Tested-by: Vishnu Pajjuri <vis...@os.amperecomputing.com> > >> Tested-by: Xianglai Li <lixiang...@loongson.cn> > >> Tested-by: Miguel Luis <miguel.l...@oracle.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahu...@redhat.com> > >> Tested-by: Zhao Liu <zhao1....@intel.com> > >> --- > >> hw/acpi/cpu.c | 2 +- > >> hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c | 4 ++++ > >> include/hw/acpi/cpu_hotplug.h | 2 ++ > >> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/acpi/cpu.c b/hw/acpi/cpu.c > >> index 473b37ba88..af2b6655d2 100644 > >> --- a/hw/acpi/cpu.c > >> +++ b/hw/acpi/cpu.c > >> @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ const VMStateDescription vmstate_cpu_hotplug = { > >> #define CPUHP_RES_DEVICE "PRES" > >> #define CPU_LOCK "CPLK" > >> #define CPU_STS_METHOD "CSTA" > >> -#define CPU_SCAN_METHOD "CSCN" > >> +#define CPU_SCAN_METHOD ACPI_CPU_SCAN_METHOD > >> #define CPU_NOTIFY_METHOD "CTFY" > >> #define CPU_EJECT_METHOD "CEJ0" > >> #define CPU_OST_METHOD "COST" > >> diff --git a/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c > >> b/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c > >> index 54d3b4bf9d..63226b0040 100644 > >> --- a/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c > >> +++ b/hw/acpi/generic_event_device.c > >> @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ void build_ged_aml(Aml *table, const char *name, > >> HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, > >> aml_append(if_ctx, aml_call0(MEMORY_DEVICES_CONTAINER "." > >> MEMORY_SLOT_SCAN_METHOD)); > >> break; > >> + case ACPI_GED_CPU_HOTPLUG_EVT: > >> + aml_append(if_ctx, aml_call0(ACPI_CPU_CONTAINER "." > >> + ACPI_CPU_SCAN_METHOD)); > > I don't particularly like exposing cpu hotplug internals for outside code > > and then making that code do plumbing hoping that nothing will explode > > in the future. > > I understand your point but I've followed what was already existing. > > For example, > > build_dsdt() > > { > > [...] > > acpi_dsdt_add_uart(scope, &memmap[VIRT_UART], > (irqmap[VIRT_UART] + ARM_SPI_BASE)); > if (vmc->acpi_expose_flash) { > acpi_dsdt_add_flash(scope, &memmap[VIRT_FLASH]); > } > fw_cfg_acpi_dsdt_add(scope, &memmap[VIRT_FW_CFG]); > virtio_acpi_dsdt_add(scope, memmap[VIRT_MMIO].base, > memmap[VIRT_MMIO].size, > (irqmap[VIRT_MMIO] + ARM_SPI_BASE), > 0, NUM_VIRTIO_TRANSPORTS); > acpi_dsdt_add_pci(scope, memmap, irqmap[VIRT_PCIE] + ARM_SPI_BASE, > vms); > if (vms->acpi_dev) { > build_ged_aml(scope, "\\_SB."GED_DEVICE, > HOTPLUG_HANDLER(vms->acpi_dev), > irqmap[VIRT_ACPI_GED] + ARM_SPI_BASE, > AML_SYSTEM_MEMORY, > memmap[VIRT_ACPI_GED].base); > } else { > acpi_dsdt_add_gpio(scope, &memmap[VIRT_GPIO], > (irqmap[VIRT_GPIO] + ARM_SPI_BASE)); > } > > [...] > > } > > Refactoring all of this code will create a noise in this patch-set. > > build_cpus_aml() takes event_handler_method to create a method that > > can be called by platform. What I suggest is to call that method here > > instead of trying to expose CPU hotplug internals and manually building > > call path here. > > aka: > > build_cpus_aml(event_handler_method = PATH_TO_GED_DEVICE.CSCN) > > and then call here > > aml_append(if_ctx, aml_call0(CSCN)); > > which will call CSCN in GED scope, that was be populated by > > build_cpus_aml() to do cpu scan properly without need to expose > > cpu hotplug internal names and then trying to fixup conflicts caused by > > that. > > > > PS: > > we should do the same for memory hotplug, we see in context above > > > Although. I agree with your suggested change but I think this should be > > carried in another patch-set. I have to disagree with another patch-set on top as it introduces unnecessary code changes, wich 'another patch-set' will put back. (talking specifically about CPU hotplug) Not to mention doing as it was suggested should reduce size of your series and overall complexity. > > Best, Salil. > > > > >> + break; > >> case ACPI_GED_PWR_DOWN_EVT: > >> aml_append(if_ctx, > >> aml_notify(aml_name(ACPI_POWER_BUTTON_DEVICE), > >> diff --git a/include/hw/acpi/cpu_hotplug.h b/include/hw/acpi/cpu_hotplug.h > >> index 48b291e45e..ef631750b4 100644 > >> --- a/include/hw/acpi/cpu_hotplug.h > >> +++ b/include/hw/acpi/cpu_hotplug.h > >> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ > >> #include "hw/acpi/cpu.h" > >> > >> #define ACPI_CPU_HOTPLUG_REG_LEN 12 > >> +#define ACPI_CPU_SCAN_METHOD "CSCN" > >> +#define ACPI_CPU_CONTAINER "\\_SB.CPUS" > >> > >> typedef struct AcpiCpuHotplug { > >> Object *device; >
