2008/757 SPARC support for AST graphics

[Eric Sultan]

I'd not realized that DDI_SUSPEND/DDI_RESUME was no longer a factor in 
Solaris 10.  I'll look into that, and am prepared to be surprised.  
Still, we like our source code to be as alike as possible across OS 
versions, so the team would deliver it into Solaris 10 anyway.

The x86 support for ast won't use the SPARC kernel device driver, nor an 
x86 kernel driver, so the quiesce question is not a factor for ast on 
x86.  At least, not as a part of this project.

  -- Eric


Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Eric Sultan wrote:
>> The project team agrees that quiesce and suspend/resume should be 
>> supported.
>>
>> Solaris 10 deliveries will include support for DDI_SUSPEND and 
>> DDI_RESUME.
>>
>> Post-Solaris 10 deliveries will also include support for 
>> quiesce(9e).  In the initial deliveries, the quiesce vector in the 
>> dev_ops struct will be set to ddi_quiesce_not_supported if the target 
>> OS doesn't yet have any quiesce users.  When the Fast Reboot team 
>> delivers code that uses quiesce, the ast driver will replace that 
>> vector with one to a device-specific quiesce entry point.
>
> I'm happy with this response.  Note that on x86, there are already 
> quiesce() users.  So on x86 at least, quiesce should be supported on 
> Nevada from the initial point of integration.
>
> (As an aside, I'm not sure there is any point in doing 
> DDI_SUSPEND/RESUME on Solaris 10.  None of the SPARC platforms in 
> question can SUSPEND/RESUME -- or at least I don't think they can -- 
> and x86 SUSPEND/RESUME is only supported on Solaris 
> Nevada/OpenSolaris.   So you might have a difficult time verifying 
> suspend/resume on S10.)
>
>    -- Garrett
>>
>>   -- Eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sherry Moore wrote:
>>> quiesce(9E) is a newly (since build 100) added dev_ops entry point
>>>     http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2255/quiesce-9e?l=en&a=view
>>>
>>> The Fast Reboot team would like the SPARC AST project team to state
>>> in the final case material
>>>
>>>     1. that quiesce(9E) will not be implemented at initial integration
>>>        and why.
>>>
>>>     2. their commitment to implement quiesce(9E) when SPARC Fast Reboot
>>>        project is in progress.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sherry
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 10:28:56AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>  
>>>> At PSARC today, this was let run, because of the question of 
>>>> quiesce(9e) support.  PSARC would like to see either the project 
>>>> team agree to implement quiesce(9e)  or a written statement from 
>>>> the Fast Reboot team clarifying that quiesce() is not needed for 
>>>> this project.
>>>>
>>>> (Note that while I understand the project title indicates SPARC, 
>>>> earlier discussion has revealed that this project also shares code 
>>>> with x86.  I personally believe the quiesce question is more 
>>>> germane to x86 at the moment, but I'm not sure if that is 
>>>> tantamount to granting a blanket waiver for SPARC drivers.)
>>>>
>>>> The same questions can also be made of DDI_SUSPEND and DDI_RESUME, 
>>>> though I perceive that there is less urgency here (given that this 
>>>> is intended for server products).
>>>>
>>>> As a final personal note, I expect that if the project team simply 
>>>> agrees to implement both suspend/resume and quiesce, that this case 
>>>> will be approved with no further objections.
>>>>
>>>>    - -Garrett
>>>>     
>>>
>>>   
>>
>