Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:49:48 +0100
From:   Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        james.quinlan@broadcom.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, etienne.carriere@linaro.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, souvik.chakravarty@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1
 PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET checks
Message-ID: <Ymqba5DZqELVRulS@e120937-lin>
References: <20220330150551.2573938-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20220330150551.2573938-23-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20220428131357.mbj5pksrnt5auotb@bogus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220428131357.mbj5pksrnt5auotb@bogus>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 02:13:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > Starting with SCMIv3.1, the PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET command allows a user
> > to request only one between max and min ranges to be changed, while leaving
> > the other untouched if set to zero in the request; anyway SCMIv3.1 states
> > also explicitly that you cannot leave both of those unchanged (zeroed) when
> > issuing such command: add a proper check for this condition.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > index 65ffda5495d6..8f4051aca220 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > @@ -423,6 +423,9 @@ static int scmi_perf_limits_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
> >  	struct scmi_perf_info *pi = ph->get_priv(ph);
> >  	struct perf_dom_info *dom = pi->dom_info + domain;
> >  
> > +	if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(pi->version) >= 0x3 && !max_perf && !min_perf)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> 
> Do we really need the version check here ? I agree it was explicitly added
> in v3.1, but it makes sense on any version really. No ?

Indeed seemed a silly patch also to me but given that only in v3.1 it is
explicitly stated that you cannot issue this command with both min and
max ZEROED I though this could have broken older fw that allowed
setting PERF_LIMITS_SET max=0 min=0

....maybe overthought ...

Thanks,
Cristian