[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250704051204.GB4525@nxa18884-linux>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 13:12:04 +0800
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Chuck Cannon <chuck.cannon@....com>,
Souvik Chakravarty <souvik.chakravarty@....com>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org,
imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] firmware: arm_scmi: imx: Support discovering
buildinfo of MISC protocol
Hi Sudeep,
On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 04:21:40PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:03:45PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> MISC protocol supports discovering the System Manager(SM) build
>> information including build commit, build time and etc. Add the API
>> for user to retrieve the information from SM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>> ---
>> .../firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h | 12 ++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c
>> index a8915d3b4df518719d56bfff38922625ad9b70f6..1b24d070c6f4856b92f515fcdba5836fd6498ce6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>> enum scmi_imx_misc_protocol_cmd {
>> SCMI_IMX_MISC_CTRL_SET = 0x3,
>> SCMI_IMX_MISC_CTRL_GET = 0x4,
>> + SCMI_IMX_MISC_DISCOVER_BUILDINFO = 0x6,
>
>I clearly missed to raise this point when the documentation for this command
>was added. Anyways I assume, you had explored all the options before adding
>this as generic tools may not be able to pick this up. Instead, I would have
>just stuck with vendor version in the standard protocol with build number
>embedded into it. The date and other info must be implicit from the build.
>
>I try to be more cautious and ask questions in the future as I don't want
>vendor extensions to be dumping ground for really random things like this.
+Souvik
And Loop our firmware owner to help comment. I just add what the firmware
supports here and allow linux to see the information when the firmware
does not have uart output in some builds.
>From SCMI spec, it does not restrict what vendor extensions should be like
as I know. So I am not sure what we should do when we define vendor
extensions and what I should do next for this patch.
Please suggest.
Thanks,
Peng
>
>--
>Regards,
>Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists