undefined | Better HN

0 pointsphh4y ago0 comments

Implementing a PSCI mechanism in m1n1 sounds like a nice workaround (I could almost consider it an actual fix, even if it's not totally standard), but I'm a bit surprised:

- Doesn't ARMv8 architecture require supervisor mode? You should be able to just pop a good old Arm Trusted Framework sample, implement PSCI in there just like other standard ARMv8?

- Linux kernel already supports various PSCI-less architectures (rpi4 notably for armv8 if I'm not mistaken), so I don't think upstream would mind about that at all?

I guess your proposed approach makes sense when the target is more than just Linux though, do you have hopes that m1n1 could be eventually suitable to boot Windows?

0 comments

marcan_424y ago

ARMv8 does not require EL3 (nor EL2, for that matter). They are architecturally optional, and there's a whole bunch of the spec dedicated to how things interact with their presence or absence. There is definitely no EL3 on these machines.

Does rPi4 really have these features without PSCI? The internet suggests it does not support sleep states at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't do any fancy CPU idle states either. Hence, they're at the same point we're at without PSCI.

monocasa4y ago

The rpi4 has some power management via the mailbox interface to the videocore, but it's just hacked on to the side and is more of an example of how not do things IMO. Particularly how it's exposed to user space is real gross (basically raw mailbox calls). It's closer to the primitives that psci or acpi would be papering over.

marcan_424y ago

It's honestly a bit amusing how many people have been doubting how good Asahi can get without official support, but then you look at "officially supported" platforms like Raspberry Pi and so much stuff is barely held together with string and kernel forks...

Honestly, those Broadcom chips are crazier to support than th M1s, and the rPi foundation don't exactly have much of an upstream-first reputation... so I'm quite confident we can do a lot better.

3 more replies

svenpeter4y ago

I don't think ARMv8 requires EL3 but even if it did there is no EL3 on the M1.

Booting Windows natively would require Microsoft's support since some rather invasive changes to the kernel would be required (FIQ support, DART instead of SMMU) on top of implementing drivers for everything.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsphh4y ago0 comments

Implementing a PSCI mechanism in m1n1 sounds like a nice workaround (I could almost consider it an actual fix, even if it's not totally standard), but I'm a bit surprised:

- Doesn't ARMv8 architecture require supervisor mode? You should be able to just pop a good old Arm Trusted Framework sample, implement PSCI in there just like other standard ARMv8?

- Linux kernel already supports various PSCI-less architectures (rpi4 notably for armv8 if I'm not mistaken), so I don't think upstream would mind about that at all?

I guess your proposed approach makes sense when the target is more than just Linux though, do you have hopes that m1n1 could be eventually suitable to boot Windows?

0 comments

marcan_424y ago

monocasa4y ago

marcan_424y ago

Honestly, those Broadcom chips are crazier to support than th M1s, and the rPi foundation don't exactly have much of an upstream-first reputation... so I'm quite confident we can do a lot better.

3 more replies

svenpeter4y ago

I don't think ARMv8 requires EL3 but even if it did there is no EL3 on the M1.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse