From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECA6E3B27C4 for ; Thu, 14 May 2026 07:36:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778744200; cv=none; b=BzzterFp1ypnTQz/aAaqDFPcyniCv7XURdPschTcqU1YC5Vlj3BTQ2n0LcX76Jw8eeF6i9ZrGxVIXebiEKFQ8ZO63nrvyOA6IoAEML3Sd5M1VJEZFm8r5Y7io64yVU0ZE3zPMePB8If4UMaLC0N20zS6BPrbH90pd26izkKjkOg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778744200; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UI04wNFPPT3rrlI91nuUxUQH70vXEvo8Dkab3K6b6e0=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=VZYLjTVwZAox5QOem6arwOlWIOmuzbpHVENPm/KfQRq0g00y8fkl8w9PsF5j5Tu9YZKxtr9wdpBK/Clzo9cFtFjK0sJwzaUp5yg7+l5Q+NqIcChO6lloeR9tc+GKiSnWPnraW+qTykgodFmVNhpKYuhgDz5h2yLd84iqLoHZHvM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=j2P4sbY+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="j2P4sbY+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 997DDC2BCB7; Thu, 14 May 2026 07:36:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778744199; bh=UI04wNFPPT3rrlI91nuUxUQH70vXEvo8Dkab3K6b6e0=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=j2P4sbY+NomtdQ1fQoYxgaa8eB0Zlqs9WjhupgmCE4hJcmdqtZFingZylEFIRCydx ANm0aiK8JOz/iV3FETaPF37RunNKWTx5FPZjNs8F6sMSBfC8Ue9+8Jz7jblDH8des/ cdMmCqe1KRr2W7C8sVzfpfKFDPswtwEon7iWCjhaRR8Ty5VIoWier4iykN5GMwQn6y lwJjXOp5zkWX1uXI7uKhyb4v5s98S6nL9Kh01L0uGqJyaxtn/t5OUCDum6D9DYyOOS uZhrOKFW0LsmwkU0F6CQjUf8/fwctcl86wmIzcFKwfQ51NVBpm9IY0SVL45S3VAN9l sLRczjZ8Q/x9A== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] powercap: arm_scmi_powercap: Log number of powercap domains Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Alex Tran" Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260513-scmi-client-probe-log-v1-1-00b47b1be009@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260513-scmi-client-probe-log-v1-1-00b47b1be009@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 07:36:39 +0000 Message-Id: <20260514073639.997DDC2BCB7@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] Misleading and redundant log message introduced during probe. - [Low] Incorrect format specifier used for an unsigned integer. -- commit bbe520bfc76fbb3ccbb1f090461778e8837406ba Author: Alex Tran powercap: arm_scmi_powercap: Log number of powercap domains The SCMI powercap driver does not currently report how many powercap domains were discovered from firmware during probe. This commit adds a log message indicating the powercap domain count after a successful probe. > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c b/drivers/powercap/arm_= scmi_powercap.c > index ab66e9a3b1e2c..48d721385f946 100644 > --- a/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c > +++ b/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c > @@ -496,6 +496,7 @@ static int scmi_powercap_probe(struct scmi_device *sd= ev) > return ret; > =20 > dev_set_drvdata(dev, pr); > + dev_info(dev, "Initialized %d powercap domains\n", pr->num_zones); Before this line, scmi_zones_register() is called, which already logs the number of successfully registered domains: dev_info(dev, "Registered %d SCMI Powercap domains !\n", reg_zones); Does this new dev_info() call create redundant and potentially conflicting output in the kernel ring buffer? Additionally, scmi_powercap_probe() explicitly skips domains with abstract power scales earlier in the function: if (!spz->info->powercap_scale_uw && !spz->info->powercap_scale_mw) { dev_warn(dev, "Abstract power scale not supported. Skip %s.\n", spz->info->name); spz->invalid =3D true; continue; } Because pr->num_zones represents the total discovered domains rather than the number actually initialized, could the count in the new log message be misleading? Finally, pr->num_zones is defined as an unsigned int in struct scmi_powercap_root. Should the format specifier be %u instead of %d to ensure type correctness? > =20 > return ret; > } --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260513-scmi-clien= t-probe-log-v1-0-00b47b1be009@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3D1