linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] firmware: arm_scmi: Increase MAX

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: <DEVGFVA8N0N9.13ZJADVNM9PHO@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 14:25:08 +0000
From: "Alexey Klimov" <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>
To: "Sudeep Holla" <sudeep.holla@....com>, "Vivek Aknurwar"
 <vivek.aknurwar@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: <cristian.marussi@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
 <mike.tipton@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] firmware: arm_scmi: Increase MAX_OPPS to 64

On Thu Dec 11, 2025 at 2:07 PM GMT, Sudeep Holla wrote:

[..]

>> > Ah good point on confusing commit message. I just assumed it is limitation
>> > of the implementation. I can update the log when applying. It is not spec
>> > or protocol limitation for sure.
>> >
>> > How about this ?
>> >
>> >   | firmware: arm_scmi: Increase performance MAX_OPPS limit to 64
>> >   |
>> >   | Some platforms expose more than 32 operating performance points (OPPs)
>> >   | per performance domain via the SCMI performance protocol, but the
>> >   | driver currently limits the number of OPPs it can handle to 32 via
>> >   | MAX_OPPS.
>> >   |
>> >   | Bump MAX_OPPS to 64 so that these platforms can register all their
>> >   | performance levels. This is an internal limit in the driver only and
>> >   | does not affect the SCMI protocol ABI.
>> >   |
>> >   | 64 is chosen as the next power of two above the existing limit.
>> 
>> Yeah, that sounds better :)
>> 
> Thanks!
>
>> I also thought that this was a driver limitation, not the protocol/spec one
>> as stated in the original patch.
>> 
>> I don't mind updating the commit message like this (but I am not the author
>> of the original patch).
>> 
> Vivek, are you happy with the above edited commit message ?

FWIW, with updated commit message feel free to use:

Reviewed-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>

Best regards,
Alexey