Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-28941-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <674d8057-94b1-2e8a-a3ce-d8719e978298@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 17:36:52 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] firmware: arm_scmi: Register and handle limits change
 notification
Content-Language: en-US
To: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
CC: <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, <rafael@kernel.org>, <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <quic_mdtipton@quicinc.com>,
        <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240108140118.1596-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
 <Zaeg1H9G5jOeOXh2@pluto>
From: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zaeg1H9G5jOeOXh2@pluto>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 1/17/24 15:11, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 07:31:15PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>> This series registers for scmi limits change notifications and adds
>> perf_notify_support/perf_opp_xlate interfaces which are used by the
>> scmi cpufreq driver to determine the throttled frequency and apply HW
>> pressure.
>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> a few initial remarks from the mere SCMI standpoint.
> 
> Unlinke most SCMI protocols that expose domains info bits via an
> *info_get protocol operation, PERF does no do this since (till now) there
> wasn't a compelling reason (i.e. users)
> 
> Ulf recently in his GenPD/SCMI series recently started exposing something
> and now you need to expose even more, adding also a new xlate ops.
> 
> For the sake of simplicity, I think that we could now expose straight
> away the whole perf_domain_info and embedded structs via the usual *info_get.
> 
> After having done that, you can just drop your patch 1 and 2 since you
> can access the needed info from the cpufreq_driver right away.
> 
> Having said, I have already such patch ready (for my internal testing), I
> wll post it by the end of week after a minor cleanup, if you can bear with me.
> 
> Thoughts ?

Ack, just from the naming I initially thought info_get would include
everything but it just exposed minimal info. We certainly don't want to
keep adding very similar ops just to expose more such info. I'll re-send
the remainder of the series after you are done with your patches.
Thanks.

-Sibi

> 
> Thanks,
> Cristian