[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250206105218.GA22527@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 18:52:20 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Jacky Bai <ping.bai@....com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Bypass setting fwnode for
scmi cpufreq
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 03:45:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 03:13:29PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
>> index 2c853c84b58f530898057e4ab274ba76070de05e..7850eb7710f499888d32aebf5d99df63db8bfa26 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
>> @@ -344,6 +344,21 @@ static void __scmi_device_destroy(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev)
>> device_unregister(&scmi_dev->dev);
>> }
>>
>> +static int
>> +__scmi_device_set_node(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev, struct device_node *np,
>> + int protocol, const char *name)
>> +{
>> + /* cpufreq device does not need to be supplier from devlink perspective */
>> + if ((protocol == SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF) && !strcmp(name, "cpufreq")) {
>
>I don't love this... It seems like an hack. Could we put a flag
>somewhere instead? Perhaps in scmi_device? (I'm just saying that
>because that's what we're passing to this function).
This means when creating scmi_device, a flag needs to be set which requires
to extend scmi_device_id to include a flag entry or else.
As below in scmi-cpufreq.c
{ SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF, "cpufreq", SCMI_FWNODE_NO }
I am not sure Sudeep or Cristian are happy with the idea or not.
But back to the patch here, we are in the path creating the scmi_device and
cpufreq scmi device seems the only one that cause issue. So it should be
fine using this patch?
Thanks,
Peng
>
>regards,
>dan carpenter
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists