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:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 14:49:20 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Introduce SCMI System Power Control driver
Message-ID: <20220701134920.3elmh4bww3s63trr@bogus>
References: <20220623124742.2492164-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220623124742.2492164-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 01:47:37PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This series is a respin of an old series[0] parked for a while waiting for
> a required SCMI specification change to be published.
> 
> The series, building on top of the SCMI System Power Protocol, adds a new 
> SCMI driver which, registering for SystemPower notifications, takes care to
> satisfy SCMI plaform system-transitions graceful requests like shutdown or
> reboot involving userspace interactions as needed.
> 
> Interaction with userspace boils down to the same orderly_ Kernel methods
> used by ACPI to handle similar shutdown requests.
> 
> The latest SCMI v3.1 specification [1], which adds a new timeout field to
> the graceful notifications payload, let the platform advertise for how long
> it will possibly wait for the requested system state transition to happen
> before forcibly enforcing it.
> 
> As a part of the series, patch 2/3 enforces, at the SCMI core level, the
> creation of one single SCMI SystemPower device, to avoid promoting the
> design of systems in which multiple SCMI platforms can advertise the
> concurrent support of SystemPower protocol: when multiple SCMI platform
> are defined, only one of them should be in charge of SystemPower comms
> with the OSPM, so only one such SystemPower device across all platforms
> is allowed to be created.
> 

Other than the comment in 2/5, I am happy with the other changes.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep