Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46362-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:35:27 +0000
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>, rafael@kernel.org,
	viresh.kumar@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com,
	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
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Add perf_notify_support
 interface
Message-ID: <ZbowcUEa3-gxqzXp@pluto>
References: <20240117104116.2055349-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
 <20240117104116.2055349-2-quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
 <ZbfJN1c9viiLhO1L@pluto>
 <ZbfhdqBBpjyf3IRI@pluto>
 <20240131112854.24euh6c6xgljsj6c@bogus>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240131112854.24euh6c6xgljsj6c@bogus>

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 11:28:54AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 05:33:42PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:50:20PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 04:11:13PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > > > Add a new perf_notify_support interface to the existing perf_ops to export
> > > > info regarding limit/level change notification support.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Sibi,
> > > 
> > > as I mentioned previously, in order not to add a needless stream of SCMI
> > > Perf accessors I posted this:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20240129151002.1215333-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com/T/#u
> > > 
> > > to expose all the Perf domains infos via the usual info_get(), similarly
> > > to how other SCMI protocols do already.
> > > 
> > > I think that reworking this series on that, you can certainly drop this patch and just
> > > check the _notify booleans on the retrieved domain info.
> > 
> > Sorry, but hold on with this change, I will probably post an updated version
> > my patch above.
> > 
> 
> As discussed in private, I would prefer to avoid exposing all the internals
> to the users of SCMI perf. At the same time may we can do better if we can
> check the availability of notification as part of notification enablement
> from the SCMI driver, I need to think the details yet.

Yes a patch is under-work to avoid exposing too much Perf info AND to
avoid adding ad-hoc accessors like xlate, in this case.

Thanks,
Cristian