[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c9660c1-ab64-4186-917d-2007d88ce7c7@epam.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:57:24 +0000
From: Oleksii Moisieiev <Oleksii_Moisieiev@...m.com>
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
CC: "sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 2/5] drivers: firmware: scmi: Introduce
scmi_get_max_msg_size function
Hi Cristian,
Just found an interesting note in the PINCTRL_CONFIG_SET command
description:
The maximum value of this field is limited by
the transport used. The agent needs to specify
this field such that the entire command can be
accommodated within the transport chosen.
Furthermore, I observed the absence of a skip_configs parameter.
From my understanding, this implies that the maximum number of
configurations should not exceed the msg_max_size allowed by the
protocol, enabling the transmission of only one message to the SCMI
server at a time.
Given this constraint, it seems we might not require additional helper
functions. We could potentially just verify against msg_max_size.
Best regards,
Oleksii
On 02.11.23 09:29, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 06:28:09AM +0000, Oleksii Moisieiev wrote:
>> Current SCMI implementation supports only receiving arrays from the
>> SCMI server and provides helpers to process received data. It uses
>> msg_max_size value to determine maximum message size that can be
>> transmitted via selected protocol. When sending arrays to SCMI server
>> this value should be checked by the Client driver to prevent
>> overflowing protocol buffers.
>> That's why scmi_get_max_msg_size call was introduced.
>>
>
> Hi Oleksii,
>
> indeed given the new variable sized v3.2 SCMI requests (instead of
> responses) this common helper is now needed for the protocols to be
> able to properly size and chunk their command requests, BUT this is
> a new core helper that has potentially to be available to any future
> protocol so it has to be exposed as a common helpers in helpers_ops
> (like iterators or extended_name helpers), if NOT this common method
> won't be available to protocols when compiled as distinct loadable
> modules (vendor-modules can be defined and built as LKM)
>
> Thanks,
> Cristian
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists