On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 03:29:02PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 30 August 2018 at 12:02, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:39:33AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 30 August 2018 at 09:31, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 03:07:29PM +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
> >> >> @Ard, @Leif, is there any possibility to remove all the DT nodes?
> >> >> On real hardware, how does UEFI find the memory size and CPU number?
> >> >
> >> > Usually by asking some form of SCP/PMU.
> >> > So until we have rock-solid multi-cpu-instance (making terms up here,
> >> > there may be a proper name already?) support upstream, we need to take
> >> > shortcuts.
> >>
> >> I would expect that you'd want a "faked-on-the-QEMU end" SCP
> >> communications endpoint to start with anyway. We have one of
> >> those for vexpress, for instance.
> >
> > Ah, I wasn't aware we did!
> >
> > In that case - sure, that is probably the more sensible solution.
> > Does it emulate SCMI?
>
> The purpose of the SBSA/SBBR qemu machine is prototyping the
> interactions between rich firmware and the OS for things like RAS,
> secure variable storage for UEFI or capsule update.
I think it would be useful to at some point have also an open-source
SCP implementation and tie it into this platform (if feasible). I do
not however think it is important, and certainly nothing we need to
worry about for now.
> How exactly the firmware figures out how many CPUs and how much memory
> we are running with is out of scope for this, and so I don't think
> there is a need to build something from scratch here: DT will do just
> fine, given that both EDK2 and ARM-TF have working DT code for these
> things.
Agreed.
> fw_cfg, on the other hand, is unsuitable for us. Generating ACPI
> tables in a different way from actual bare metal is not a good idea,
> given that things like RAS interact with ACPI as well, and fw_cfg is
> also exposed to the OS in the default mach-virt configuration. So we
> could tweak fw_cfg to be more suitable, but I think that does not
> improve the usefulness of our prototype at all.
Indeed.
> At some point, it would be nice if we could get UEFI to receive its
> platform description from ARM-TF in a generic manner, and it would be
> good for EDK2 and ARM-TF to align on this. So even if we decide that
> SCMI is more suitable way to convey this information from QEMU to the
> guest firmware, I would object to implementing the client side of that
> in UEFI, given that it should be ARM-TF that provides this
> information.
Yes, but the modeled SCP is relevant for the ARM-TF port for this
platform. A "faked-on-the-QEMU end" SCP that communicates via SCMI (or
if that's been superseded, I may have lost track) allows for sharing
generic arm-tf code for retrieving this information with most hardware
platforms.
And that _would_ be nicer than having the lowest layers of the EDK2
port looking more like hardware than mach-virt.
This is of course also something that could be addressed at a later
date - I'm not sure how generic arm-tf is in this regard today.
/
Leif
