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: <b904647e-050f-4283-a24d-71181480dc7a@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:19:53 -0800
From: Vivek Aknurwar <vivek.aknurwar@....qualcomm.com>
To: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....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 12/11/2025 6:25 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> 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 ?

Yes, I’m good with the suggested commit message. Thanks for clarifying!

Signed-off-by: Vivek Aknurwar <vivek.aknurwar@....qualcomm.com>
> 
> FWIW, with updated commit message feel free to use:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@...aro.org>
> 
> Best regards,
> Alexey