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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aPeu2E-jfhcw7P_q@pluto>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:03:36 +0100
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	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, Oct 21, 2025 at 04:15:29PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> 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/
> 

Oh yes of course... the while docs/ stuff is still TBD...btw I am not even
sure if the whole driver will be required to be moved into fs/ as a
requirement while doing filesystem review...I suppose I will leave this
sort of reworks for the next reviews cycles....

...and...if I may ask... is it linux-fsdevel the ML for this fs-related
stuff I suppose...not sure about maintainers looking at MAINTAINERS ...

Thanks a lot for having a look Jonathan.
Cristian