[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84adb06f-20f0-4e3d-9a6e-43e4b0d1b5ab@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 15:56:59 +0200
From: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, sudeep.holla@....com,
cristian.marussi@....com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
johan@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Skip adding bad duplicates
On 4.09.2024 5:13 AM, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Ensure that the bad duplicates reported by the platform firmware doesn't
> get added to the opp-tables.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> index 2d77b5f40ca7..114c3dd70ede 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> @@ -386,9 +386,11 @@ process_response_opp(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom,
> le16_to_cpu(r->opp[loop_idx].transition_latency_us);
>
> ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s - ret:%d\n",
> opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret);
> + opp->perf = 0;
> + }
> }
>
> static inline void
> @@ -404,9 +406,12 @@ process_response_opp_v4(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom,
> le16_to_cpu(r->opp[loop_idx].transition_latency_us);
>
> ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s - ret:%d\n",
> opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret);
> + opp->perf = 0;
> + return;
> + }
>
> /* Note that PERF v4 reports always five 32-bit words */
> opp->indicative_freq = le32_to_cpu(r->opp[loop_idx].indicative_freq);
> @@ -871,6 +876,10 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
> else
> freq = dom->opp[idx].indicative_freq * dom->mult_factor;
>
> + /* Skip all invalid frequencies reported by the firmware */
> + if (!freq)
> + continue;
Maybe something like this instead? (not tested)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
index 2d77b5f40ca7..530692119c79 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
@@ -431,8 +431,14 @@ iter_perf_levels_process_response(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
{
struct scmi_opp *opp;
struct scmi_perf_ipriv *p = priv;
+ unsigned int idx = st->desc_index + st->loop_idx;
+
+ opp = &p->perf_dom->opp[idx];
+
+ /* Avoid duplicate entries coming from buggy firmware */
+ if (idx > 0 && opp->perf && p->perf_dom->opp[idx - 1].perf)
+ return 0;
- opp = &p->perf_dom->opp[st->desc_index + st->loop_idx];
if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(p->version) <= 0x3)
process_response_opp(ph->dev, p->perf_dom, opp, st->loop_idx,
response);
Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists