linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/10] firmware: arm_scmi: Add System Telemetry driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251021161529.00001468@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:15:29 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>, <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	<james.quinlan@...adcom.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <etienne.carriere@...com>,
	<peng.fan@....nxp.com>, <michal.simek@....com>, <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>,
	<dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, <d-gole@...com>, <souvik.chakravarty@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] firmware: arm_scmi: Add System Telemetry driver

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:27:02 +0100
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:23:28PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 21:35:50 +0100
> > Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Add a new SCMI System Telemetry driver which gathers platform Telemetry
> > > data through the new the SCMI Telemetry protocol and expose all of the
> > > discovered Telemetry data events on a dedicated pseudo-filesystem that
> > > can be used to interactively configure SCMI Telemetry and access its
> > > provided data.  
> >  
> 
> Hi,
>  
> > I'm not a fan of providing yet another filesystem but you didn't

"did" was what this was meant to say.

Sorry for the confusing garbage comment from me!

> > lay out reasoning in the cover letter.  
> 
> Sorry, I dont understand..you mean here that I did NOT provide enough reasons
> why I am adopting a new FS approach ? ... or I misunderstood the English ?
> 
> .. because I did provide a lot of reasons (for my point-of-view) to go
> for a new FS in the cover-letter...
> 
> > 
> > One non trivial issue is that you'll have to get filesystem review on this.
> > My review is rather superficial but a few things stood out.  
> 
> Well yes I would have expected that, but now the FS implementation
> internals of this series is definetely immature and to be reworked (to
> the extent of using a well-know deprecated FS mount api at first..)
> 
> So I posted this V1 to lay-out the ideas and the effective FS API layout
> but I was planning to extend the review audience once I have reworked fully
> the series FS bits in the next V2...

I'd suggest ABI docs for v2. That will match what you have in the cover letter
but put it in the somewhat formal description format of Documentation/ABI/


THanks,

Jonathan

>