Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v8 1/2] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:12:54AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * cpu_suspend   Suspend the execution on a CPU
> > > > + * @state        we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just 
> > > > pass 0.
> > > > + * @entry_point  the first instruction to be executed on return
> > > > + * returns 0  success, < 0 on failure
> > > > + *
> > > > + * cpu_off       Power down a CPU
> > > > + * @state        we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just 
> > > > pass 0.
> > > > + * no return on successful call
> > > > + *
> > > > + * cpu_on        Power up a CPU
> > > > + * @cpuid        cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
> > > > + * @entry_point  the first instruction to be executed on return
> > > > + * returns 0  success, < 0 on failure
> > > > + *
> > > > + * migrate       Migrate the context to a different CPU
> > > > + * @cpuid        cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
> > > > + * returns 0  success, < 0 on failure
> > > > + *
> > > > + */
> > > 
> > > Can you move these comments into psci-smp.c please? They're really 
> > > specific
> > > to the implementation there, and if we put them in a header we're lying to
> > > ourselves about the parameters actually described by the PSCI 
> > > specification.
> > 
> > You have a good point about the PSCI spec.
> > 
> > However from the Linux POV these comments should regard the functions
> > exported by psci_operations, not the firmware interface, this is why I
> > think it makes sense to keep them in psci.h.
> > What we are saying is for example that psci_operations.cpu_on returns 0
> > on success and < 0 on failure, and it takes a cpuid and an entry point
> > as parameters. We are not saying anything about the firmware interface.
> 
> I disagree. You're explicitly stating that we pass the `cpuid of target CPU,
> as from MPIDR'. That's simply not true -- the firmware could choose any
> numbering scheme to identify the CPUs. For KVM and Xen, it *is* the mpidr,
> which is why psci-smp.c works at all, but that's where the comment belongs,
> not in this header file.

I see, you want to keep psci_operations true to the firmware interface
while explaining that psci_smp makes some assumptions about it.
So the comment should be something like:

/*
 * psci_smp assumes that the following is true about PSCI:
 * 
 * cpu_suspend   Suspend the execution on a CPU
 * @state        we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
 * @entry_point  the first instruction to be executed on return
 * returns 0  success, < 0 on failure
 *
 * cpu_off       Power down a CPU
 * @state        we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
 * no return on successful call
 *
 * cpu_on        Power up a CPU
 * @cpuid        cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
 * @entry_point  the first instruction to be executed on return
 * returns 0  success, < 0 on failure
 *
 * migrate       Migrate the context to a different CPU
 * @cpuid        cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
 * returns 0  success, < 0 on failure
 *
 */

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel