576 lines
26 KiB
ReStructuredText
576 lines
26 KiB
ReStructuredText
===================
|
||
ACPI on Arm systems
|
||
===================
|
||
|
||
ACPI can be used for Armv8 and Armv9 systems designed to follow
|
||
the BSA (Arm Base System Architecture) [0] and BBR (Arm
|
||
Base Boot Requirements) [1] specifications. Both BSA and BBR are publicly
|
||
accessible documents.
|
||
Arm Servers, in addition to being BSA compliant, comply with a set
|
||
of rules defined in SBSA (Server Base System Architecture) [2].
|
||
|
||
The Arm kernel implements the reduced hardware model of ACPI version
|
||
5.1 or later. Links to the specification and all external documents
|
||
it refers to are managed by the UEFI Forum. The specification is
|
||
available at http://www.uefi.org/specifications and documents referenced
|
||
by the specification can be found via http://www.uefi.org/acpi.
|
||
|
||
If an Arm system does not meet the requirements of the BSA and BBR,
|
||
or cannot be described using the mechanisms defined in the required ACPI
|
||
specifications, then ACPI may not be a good fit for the hardware.
|
||
|
||
While the documents mentioned above set out the requirements for building
|
||
industry-standard Arm systems, they also apply to more than one operating
|
||
system. The purpose of this document is to describe the interaction between
|
||
ACPI and Linux only, on an Arm system -- that is, what Linux expects of
|
||
ACPI and what ACPI can expect of Linux.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Why ACPI on Arm?
|
||
----------------
|
||
Before examining the details of the interface between ACPI and Linux, it is
|
||
useful to understand why ACPI is being used. Several technologies already
|
||
exist in Linux for describing non-enumerable hardware, after all. In this
|
||
section we summarize a blog post [3] from Grant Likely that outlines the
|
||
reasoning behind ACPI on Arm systems. Actually, we snitch a good portion
|
||
of the summary text almost directly, to be honest.
|
||
|
||
The short form of the rationale for ACPI on Arm is:
|
||
|
||
- ACPI’s byte code (AML) allows the platform to encode hardware behavior,
|
||
while DT explicitly does not support this. For hardware vendors, being
|
||
able to encode behavior is a key tool used in supporting operating
|
||
system releases on new hardware.
|
||
|
||
- ACPI’s OSPM defines a power management model that constrains what the
|
||
platform is allowed to do into a specific model, while still providing
|
||
flexibility in hardware design.
|
||
|
||
- In the enterprise server environment, ACPI has established bindings (such
|
||
as for RAS) which are currently used in production systems. DT does not.
|
||
Such bindings could be defined in DT at some point, but doing so means Arm
|
||
and x86 would end up using completely different code paths in both firmware
|
||
and the kernel.
|
||
|
||
- Choosing a single interface to describe the abstraction between a platform
|
||
and an OS is important. Hardware vendors would not be required to implement
|
||
both DT and ACPI if they want to support multiple operating systems. And,
|
||
agreeing on a single interface instead of being fragmented into per OS
|
||
interfaces makes for better interoperability overall.
|
||
|
||
- The new ACPI governance process works well and Linux is now at the same
|
||
table as hardware vendors and other OS vendors. In fact, there is no
|
||
longer any reason to feel that ACPI only belongs to Windows or that
|
||
Linux is in any way secondary to Microsoft in this arena. The move of
|
||
ACPI governance into the UEFI forum has significantly opened up the
|
||
specification development process, and currently, a large portion of the
|
||
changes being made to ACPI are being driven by Linux.
|
||
|
||
Key to the use of ACPI is the support model. For servers in general, the
|
||
responsibility for hardware behaviour cannot solely be the domain of the
|
||
kernel, but rather must be split between the platform and the kernel, in
|
||
order to allow for orderly change over time. ACPI frees the OS from needing
|
||
to understand all the minute details of the hardware so that the OS doesn’t
|
||
need to be ported to each and every device individually. It allows the
|
||
hardware vendors to take responsibility for power management behaviour without
|
||
depending on an OS release cycle which is not under their control.
|
||
|
||
ACPI is also important because hardware and OS vendors have already worked
|
||
out the mechanisms for supporting a general purpose computing ecosystem. The
|
||
infrastructure is in place, the bindings are in place, and the processes are
|
||
in place. DT does exactly what Linux needs it to when working with vertically
|
||
integrated devices, but there are no good processes for supporting what the
|
||
server vendors need. Linux could potentially get there with DT, but doing so
|
||
really just duplicates something that already works. ACPI already does what
|
||
the hardware vendors need, Microsoft won’t collaborate on DT, and hardware
|
||
vendors would still end up providing two completely separate firmware
|
||
interfaces -- one for Linux and one for Windows.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Kernel Compatibility
|
||
--------------------
|
||
One of the primary motivations for ACPI is standardization, and using that
|
||
to provide backward compatibility for Linux kernels. In the server market,
|
||
software and hardware are often used for long periods. ACPI allows the
|
||
kernel and firmware to agree on a consistent abstraction that can be
|
||
maintained over time, even as hardware or software change. As long as the
|
||
abstraction is supported, systems can be updated without necessarily having
|
||
to replace the kernel.
|
||
|
||
When a Linux driver or subsystem is first implemented using ACPI, it by
|
||
definition ends up requiring a specific version of the ACPI specification
|
||
-- its baseline. ACPI firmware must continue to work, even though it may
|
||
not be optimal, with the earliest kernel version that first provides support
|
||
for that baseline version of ACPI. There may be a need for additional drivers,
|
||
but adding new functionality (e.g., CPU power management) should not break
|
||
older kernel versions. Further, ACPI firmware must also work with the most
|
||
recent version of the kernel.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Relationship with Device Tree
|
||
-----------------------------
|
||
ACPI support in drivers and subsystems for Arm 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 boot loader (including kernel bootargs).
|
||
|
||
Regardless of whether DT or ACPI is used, the kernel must always be capable
|
||
of booting with either scheme (in kernels with both schemes enabled at compile
|
||
time).
|
||
|
||
|
||
Booting using ACPI tables
|
||
-------------------------
|
||
The only defined method for passing ACPI tables to the kernel on Arm
|
||
is via the UEFI system configuration table. Just so it is explicit, this
|
||
means that ACPI is only supported on platforms that boot via UEFI.
|
||
|
||
When an Arm system boots, it can either have DT information, ACPI tables,
|
||
or in some very unusual cases, both. If no command line parameters are used,
|
||
the kernel will try to use DT for device enumeration; if there is no DT
|
||
present, the kernel will try to use ACPI tables, but only if they are present.
|
||
In neither is available, the kernel will not boot. If acpi=force is used
|
||
on the command line, the kernel will attempt to use ACPI tables first, but
|
||
fall back to DT if there are no ACPI tables present. The basic idea is that
|
||
the kernel will not fail to boot unless it absolutely has no other choice.
|
||
|
||
Processing of ACPI tables may be disabled by passing acpi=off on the kernel
|
||
command line; this is the default behavior.
|
||
|
||
In order for the kernel to load and use ACPI tables, the UEFI implementation
|
||
MUST set the ACPI_20_TABLE_GUID to point to the RSDP table (the table with
|
||
the ACPI signature "RSD PTR "). If this pointer is incorrect and acpi=force
|
||
is used, the kernel will disable ACPI and try to use DT to boot instead; the
|
||
kernel has, in effect, determined that ACPI tables are not present at that
|
||
point.
|
||
|
||
If the pointer to the RSDP table is correct, the table will be mapped into
|
||
the kernel by the ACPI core, using the address provided by UEFI.
|
||
|
||
The ACPI core will then locate and map in all other ACPI tables provided by
|
||
using the addresses in the RSDP table to find the XSDT (eXtended System
|
||
Description Table). The XSDT in turn provides the addresses to all other
|
||
ACPI tables provided by the system firmware; the ACPI core will then traverse
|
||
this table and map in the tables listed.
|
||
|
||
The ACPI core will ignore any provided RSDT (Root System Description Table).
|
||
RSDTs have been deprecated and are ignored on arm64 since they only allow
|
||
for 32-bit addresses.
|
||
|
||
Further, the ACPI core will only use the 64-bit address fields in the FADT
|
||
(Fixed ACPI Description Table). Any 32-bit address fields in the FADT will
|
||
be ignored on arm64.
|
||
|
||
Hardware reduced mode (see Section 4.1 of the ACPI 6.1 specification) will
|
||
be enforced by the ACPI core on arm64. Doing so allows the ACPI core to
|
||
run less complex code since it no longer has to provide support for legacy
|
||
hardware from other architectures. Any fields that are not to be used for
|
||
hardware reduced mode must be set to zero.
|
||
|
||
For the ACPI core to operate properly, and in turn provide the information
|
||
the kernel needs to configure devices, it expects to find the following
|
||
tables (all section numbers refer to the ACPI 6.5 specification):
|
||
|
||
- RSDP (Root System Description Pointer), section 5.2.5
|
||
|
||
- XSDT (eXtended System Description Table), section 5.2.8
|
||
|
||
- FADT (Fixed ACPI Description Table), section 5.2.9
|
||
|
||
- DSDT (Differentiated System Description Table), section
|
||
5.2.11.1
|
||
|
||
- MADT (Multiple APIC Description Table), section 5.2.12
|
||
|
||
- GTDT (Generic Timer Description Table), section 5.2.24
|
||
|
||
- PPTT (Processor Properties Topology Table), section 5.2.30
|
||
|
||
- DBG2 (DeBuG port table 2), section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- APMT (Arm Performance Monitoring unit Table), section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- AGDI (Arm Generic diagnostic Dump and Reset Device Interface Table), section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- If PCI is supported, the MCFG (Memory mapped ConFiGuration
|
||
Table), section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- If booting without a console=<device> kernel parameter is
|
||
supported, the SPCR (Serial Port Console Redirection table),
|
||
section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- If necessary to describe the I/O topology, SMMUs and GIC ITSs,
|
||
the IORT (Input Output Remapping Table, section 5.2.6, specifically
|
||
Table 5-6).
|
||
|
||
- If NUMA is supported, the following tables are required:
|
||
|
||
- SRAT (System Resource Affinity Table), section 5.2.16
|
||
|
||
- SLIT (System Locality distance Information Table), section 5.2.17
|
||
|
||
- If NUMA is supported, and the system contains heterogeneous memory,
|
||
the HMAT (Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table), section 5.2.28.
|
||
|
||
- If the ACPI Platform Error Interfaces are required, the following
|
||
tables are conditionally required:
|
||
|
||
- BERT (Boot Error Record Table, section 18.3.1)
|
||
|
||
- EINJ (Error INJection table, section 18.6.1)
|
||
|
||
- ERST (Error Record Serialization Table, section 18.5)
|
||
|
||
- HEST (Hardware Error Source Table, section 18.3.2)
|
||
|
||
- SDEI (Software Delegated Exception Interface table, section 5.2.6,
|
||
specifically Table 5-6)
|
||
|
||
- AEST (Arm Error Source Table, section 5.2.6,
|
||
specifically Table 5-6)
|
||
|
||
- RAS2 (ACPI RAS2 feature table, section 5.2.21)
|
||
|
||
- If the system contains controllers using PCC channel, the
|
||
PCCT (Platform Communications Channel Table), section 14.1
|
||
|
||
- If the system contains a controller to capture board-level system state,
|
||
and communicates with the host via PCC, the PDTT (Platform Debug Trigger
|
||
Table), section 5.2.29.
|
||
|
||
- If NVDIMM is supported, the NFIT (NVDIMM Firmware Interface Table), section 5.2.26
|
||
|
||
- If video framebuffer is present, the BGRT (Boot Graphics Resource Table), section 5.2.23
|
||
|
||
- If IPMI is implemented, the SPMI (Server Platform Management Interface),
|
||
section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- If the system contains a CXL Host Bridge, the CEDT (CXL Early Discovery
|
||
Table), section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- If the system supports MPAM, the MPAM (Memory Partitioning And Monitoring table), section 5.2.6,
|
||
specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
- If the system lacks persistent storage, the IBFT (ISCSI Boot Firmware
|
||
Table), section 5.2.6, specifically Table 5-6.
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the above tables are not all present, the kernel may or may not be
|
||
able to boot properly since it may not be able to configure all of the
|
||
devices available. This list of tables is not meant to be all inclusive;
|
||
in some environments other tables may be needed (e.g., any of the APEI
|
||
tables from section 18) to support specific functionality.
|
||
|
||
|
||
ACPI Detection
|
||
--------------
|
||
Drivers should determine their probe() type by checking for a null
|
||
value for ACPI_HANDLE, or checking .of_node, or other information in
|
||
the device structure. This is detailed further in the "Driver
|
||
Recommendations" section.
|
||
|
||
In non-driver code, if the presence of ACPI needs to be detected at
|
||
run time, then check the value of acpi_disabled. If CONFIG_ACPI is not
|
||
set, acpi_disabled will always be 1.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Device Enumeration
|
||
------------------
|
||
Device descriptions in ACPI should use standard recognized ACPI interfaces.
|
||
These may contain less information than is typically provided via a Device
|
||
Tree description for the same device. This is also one of the reasons that
|
||
ACPI can be useful -- the driver takes into account that it may have less
|
||
detailed information about the device and uses sensible defaults instead.
|
||
If done properly in the driver, the hardware can change and improve over
|
||
time without the driver having to change at all.
|
||
|
||
Clocks provide an excellent example. In DT, clocks need to be specified
|
||
and the drivers need to take them into account. In ACPI, the assumption
|
||
is that UEFI will leave the device in a reasonable default state, including
|
||
any clock settings. If for some reason the driver needs to change a clock
|
||
value, this can be done in an ACPI method; all the driver needs to do is
|
||
invoke the method and not concern itself with what the method needs to do
|
||
to change the clock. Changing the hardware can then take place over time
|
||
by changing what the ACPI method does, and not the driver.
|
||
|
||
In DT, the parameters needed by the driver to set up clocks as in the example
|
||
above are known as "bindings"; in ACPI, these are known as "Device Properties"
|
||
and provided to a driver via the _DSD object.
|
||
|
||
ACPI tables are described with a formal language called ASL, the ACPI
|
||
Source Language (section 19 of the specification). This means that there
|
||
are always multiple ways to describe the same thing -- including device
|
||
properties. For example, device properties could use an ASL construct
|
||
that looks like this: Name(KEY0, "value0"). An ACPI device driver would
|
||
then retrieve the value of the property by evaluating the KEY0 object.
|
||
However, using Name() this way has multiple problems: (1) ACPI limits
|
||
names ("KEY0") to four characters unlike DT; (2) there is no industry
|
||
wide registry that maintains a list of names, minimizing re-use; (3)
|
||
there is also no registry for the definition of property values ("value0"),
|
||
again making re-use difficult; and (4) how does one maintain backward
|
||
compatibility as new hardware comes out? The _DSD method was created
|
||
to solve precisely these sorts of problems; Linux drivers should ALWAYS
|
||
use the _DSD method for device properties and nothing else.
|
||
|
||
The _DSM object (ACPI Section 9.14.1) could also be used for conveying
|
||
device properties to a driver. Linux drivers should only expect it to
|
||
be used if _DSD cannot represent the data required, and there is no way
|
||
to create a new UUID for the _DSD object. Note that there is even less
|
||
regulation of the use of _DSM than there is of _DSD. Drivers that depend
|
||
on the contents of _DSM objects will be more difficult to maintain over
|
||
time because of this; as of this writing, the use of _DSM is the cause
|
||
of quite a few firmware problems and is not recommended.
|
||
|
||
Drivers should look for device properties in the _DSD object ONLY; the _DSD
|
||
object is described in the ACPI specification section 6.2.5, but this only
|
||
describes how to define the structure of an object returned via _DSD, and
|
||
how specific data structures are defined by specific UUIDs. Linux should
|
||
only use the _DSD Device Properties UUID [4]:
|
||
|
||
- UUID: daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301
|
||
|
||
Common device properties can be registered by creating a pull request to [4] so
|
||
that they may be used across all operating systems supporting ACPI.
|
||
Device properties that have not been registered with the UEFI Forum can be used
|
||
but not as "uefi-" common properties.
|
||
|
||
Before creating new device properties, check to be sure that they have not
|
||
been defined before and either registered in the Linux kernel documentation
|
||
as DT bindings, or the UEFI Forum as device properties. While we do not want
|
||
to simply move all DT bindings into ACPI device properties, we can learn from
|
||
what has been previously defined.
|
||
|
||
If it is necessary to define a new device property, or if it makes sense to
|
||
synthesize the definition of a binding so it can be used in any firmware,
|
||
both DT bindings and ACPI device properties for device drivers have review
|
||
processes. Use them both. When the driver itself is submitted for review
|
||
to the Linux mailing lists, the device property definitions needed must be
|
||
submitted at the same time. A driver that supports ACPI and uses device
|
||
properties will not be considered complete without their definitions. Once
|
||
the device property has been accepted by the Linux community, it must be
|
||
registered with the UEFI Forum [4], which will review it again for consistency
|
||
within the registry. This may require iteration. The UEFI Forum, though,
|
||
will always be the canonical site for device property definitions.
|
||
|
||
It may make sense to provide notice to the UEFI Forum that there is the
|
||
intent to register a previously unused device property name as a means of
|
||
reserving the name for later use. Other operating system vendors will
|
||
also be submitting registration requests and this may help smooth the
|
||
process.
|
||
|
||
Once registration and review have been completed, the kernel provides an
|
||
interface for looking up device properties in a manner independent of
|
||
whether DT or ACPI is being used. This API should be used [5]; it can
|
||
eliminate some duplication of code paths in driver probing functions and
|
||
discourage divergence between DT bindings and ACPI device properties.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Programmable Power Control Resources
|
||
------------------------------------
|
||
Programmable power control resources include such resources as voltage/current
|
||
providers (regulators) and clock sources.
|
||
|
||
With ACPI, the kernel clock and regulator framework is not expected to be used
|
||
at all.
|
||
|
||
The kernel assumes that power control of these resources is represented with
|
||
Power Resource Objects (ACPI section 7.1). The ACPI core will then handle
|
||
correctly enabling and disabling resources as they are needed. In order to
|
||
get that to work, ACPI assumes each device has defined D-states and that these
|
||
can be controlled through the optional ACPI methods _PS0, _PS1, _PS2, and _PS3;
|
||
in ACPI, _PS0 is the method to invoke to turn a device full on, and _PS3 is for
|
||
turning a device full off.
|
||
|
||
There are two options for using those Power Resources. They can:
|
||
|
||
- be managed in a _PSx method which gets called on entry to power
|
||
state Dx.
|
||
|
||
- be declared separately as power resources with their own _ON and _OFF
|
||
methods. They are then tied back to D-states for a particular device
|
||
via _PRx which specifies which power resources a device needs to be on
|
||
while in Dx. Kernel then tracks number of devices using a power resource
|
||
and calls _ON/_OFF as needed.
|
||
|
||
The kernel ACPI code will also assume that the _PSx methods follow the normal
|
||
ACPI rules for such methods:
|
||
|
||
- 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 organize that it is allocated/enabled using the _PS0 method.
|
||
|
||
- Resources allocated or enabled in the _PS0 method should be disabled
|
||
or de-allocated in the _PS3 method.
|
||
|
||
- Firmware will leave the resources in a reasonable state before handing
|
||
over control to the kernel.
|
||
|
||
Such code in _PSx methods will of course be very platform specific. But,
|
||
this allows the driver to abstract out the interface for operating the device
|
||
and avoid having to read special non-standard values from ACPI tables. Further,
|
||
abstracting the use of these resources allows the hardware to change over time
|
||
without requiring updates to the driver.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Clocks
|
||
------
|
||
ACPI makes the assumption that clocks are initialized by the firmware --
|
||
UEFI, in this case -- to some working value before control is handed over
|
||
to the kernel. This has implications for devices such as UARTs, or SoC-driven
|
||
LCD displays, for example.
|
||
|
||
When the kernel boots, the clocks are assumed to be set to reasonable
|
||
working values. If for some reason the frequency needs to change -- e.g.,
|
||
throttling for power management -- the device driver should expect that
|
||
process to be abstracted out into some ACPI method that can be invoked
|
||
(please see the ACPI specification for further recommendations on standard
|
||
methods to be expected). The only exceptions to this are CPU clocks where
|
||
CPPC provides a much richer interface than ACPI methods. If the clocks
|
||
are not set, there is no direct way for Linux to control them.
|
||
|
||
If an SoC vendor wants to provide fine-grained control of the system clocks,
|
||
they could do so by providing ACPI methods that could be invoked by Linux
|
||
drivers. However, this is NOT recommended and Linux drivers should NOT use
|
||
such methods, even if they are provided. Such methods are not currently
|
||
standardized in the ACPI specification, and using them could tie a kernel
|
||
to a very specific SoC, or tie an SoC to a very specific version of the
|
||
kernel, both of which we are trying to avoid.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Driver Recommendations
|
||
----------------------
|
||
DO NOT remove any DT handling when adding ACPI support for a driver. The
|
||
same device may be used on many different systems.
|
||
|
||
DO try to structure the driver so that it is data-driven. That is, set up
|
||
a struct containing internal per-device state based on defaults and whatever
|
||
else must be discovered by the driver probe function. Then, have the rest
|
||
of the driver operate off of the contents of that struct. Doing so should
|
||
allow most divergence between ACPI and DT functionality to be kept local to
|
||
the probe function instead of being scattered throughout the driver. For
|
||
example::
|
||
|
||
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(struct platform_device *pdev)
|
||
{
|
||
...
|
||
struct device_node node = pdev->dev.of_node;
|
||
...
|
||
|
||
if (node)
|
||
ret = device_probe_dt(pdev);
|
||
else if (ACPI_HANDLE(&pdev->dev))
|
||
ret = device_probe_acpi(pdev);
|
||
else
|
||
/* other 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::
|
||
|
||
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);
|
||
|
||
|
||
ASWG
|
||
----
|
||
The ACPI specification changes regularly. During the year 2014, for instance,
|
||
version 5.1 was released and version 6.0 substantially completed, with most of
|
||
the changes being driven by Arm-specific requirements. Proposed changes are
|
||
presented and discussed in the ASWG (ACPI Specification Working Group) which
|
||
is a part of the UEFI Forum. The current version of the ACPI specification
|
||
is 6.5 release in August 2022.
|
||
|
||
Participation in this group is open to all UEFI members. Please see
|
||
http://www.uefi.org/workinggroup for details on group membership.
|
||
|
||
It is the intent of the Arm ACPI kernel code to follow the ACPI specification
|
||
as closely as possible, and to only implement functionality that complies with
|
||
the released standards from UEFI ASWG. As a practical matter, there will be
|
||
vendors that provide bad ACPI tables or violate the standards in some way.
|
||
If this is because of errors, quirks and fix-ups may be necessary, but will
|
||
be avoided if possible. If there are features missing from ACPI that preclude
|
||
it from being used on a platform, ECRs (Engineering Change Requests) should be
|
||
submitted to ASWG and go through the normal approval process; for those that
|
||
are not UEFI members, many other members of the Linux community are and would
|
||
likely be willing to assist in submitting ECRs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Linux Code
|
||
----------
|
||
Individual items specific to Linux on Arm, contained in the Linux
|
||
source code, are in the list that follows:
|
||
|
||
ACPI_OS_NAME
|
||
This macro defines the string to be returned when
|
||
an ACPI method invokes the _OS method. On Arm
|
||
systems, this macro will be "Linux" by default.
|
||
The command line parameter acpi_os=<string>
|
||
can be used to set it to some other value. The
|
||
default value for other architectures is "Microsoft
|
||
Windows NT", for example.
|
||
|
||
ACPI Objects
|
||
------------
|
||
Detailed expectations for ACPI tables and object are listed in the file
|
||
Documentation/arch/arm64/acpi_object_usage.rst.
|
||
|
||
|
||
References
|
||
----------
|
||
[0] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0094/latest
|
||
document Arm-DEN-0094: "Arm Base System Architecture", version 1.0C, dated 6 Oct 2022
|
||
|
||
[1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0044/latest
|
||
Document Arm-DEN-0044: "Arm Base Boot Requirements", version 2.0G, dated 15 Apr 2022
|
||
|
||
[2] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0029/latest
|
||
Document Arm-DEN-0029: "Arm Server Base System Architecture", version 7.1, dated 06 Oct 2022
|
||
|
||
[3] http://www.secretlab.ca/archives/151,
|
||
10 Jan 2015, Copyright (c) 2015,
|
||
Linaro Ltd., written by Grant Likely.
|
||
|
||
[4] _DSD (Device Specific Data) Implementation Guide
|
||
https://github.com/UEFI/DSD-Guide/blob/main/dsd-guide.pdf
|
||
|
||
[5] Kernel code for the unified device
|
||
property interface can be found in
|
||
include/linux/property.h and drivers/base/property.c.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Authors
|
||
-------
|
||
- Al Stone <al.stone@linaro.org>
|
||
- Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
|
||
- Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
|
||
|
||
- Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, for the "Why ACPI on ARM?" section
|