lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 06/20] firmware: arm_scmi: add initial support for performance protocol
From
Date


On 12/01/18 14:55, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>> The performance protocol is intended for the performance management of
>> group(s) of device(s) that run in the same performance domain. It
>> includes even the CPUs. A performance domain is defined by a set of
>> devices that always have to run at the same performance level.
>> For example, a set of CPUs that share a voltage domain, and have a
>> common frequency control, is said to be in the same performance domain.
>>
>> The commands in this protocol provide functionality to describe the
>> protocol version, describe various attribute flags, set and get the
>> performance level of a domain. It also supports discovery of the list
>> of performance levels supported by a performance domain, and the
>> properties of each performance level.
>>
>> This patch adds basic support for the performance protocol.
>>
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile | 2 +-
>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h | 1 +
>> drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 527 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/scmi_protocol.h | 34 +++
>> 4 files changed, 563 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> [...]
>

[..]

>> +
>> +static int scmi_perf_limits_notify_enable(const struct scmi_handle *handle,
>> + u32 domain, bool enable)
>> +{
>> + return __scmi_perf_notify_enable(handle, PERF_NOTIFY_LIMITS,
>> + domain, enable);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int scmi_perf_level_notify_enable(const struct scmi_handle *handle,
>> + u32 domain, bool enable)
>> +{
>> + return __scmi_perf_notify_enable(handle, PERF_NOTIFY_LEVEL,
>> + domain, enable);
>> +}
>> +
>
> Do you have any support to correctly handle notifications without
> errors/warnings?

Good catch.

> It looks like this two functions are accessible to some user through
> perf_ops. But are you sure that notifications will be correctly
> handled by transport, mailbox framework and scmi protocol?
>

Indeed, it slipeed through the cracks. I have some rudimentary notifier
support with I have not put it as part of this series due to lack of
firmware to test.

> The reason I ask is that it looks like it's better to return
> -EOPNOTSUPP or -ENODEV, maybe -EINVAL here.

I agree, will change it.

> When you add notifications support you can allow these operations when
> it's safe to do it.
>

Yes, sounds like that's good plan.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-14 23:25    [W:0.039 / U:2.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site