From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (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 D258730CD9D; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 10:33:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761302020; cv=none; b=Wj+Zf1W9Glee+trWWfTVRdjgQQXn50ZWn4kk6Xp6+KqcjPN7fZMUzLPwAwrSDJbJlk5/c/uKx93D1bpQf5n3neY55no2WGA9fMCZxnA7LwG7mClEhDVFlUkeB8ewOeDnUTZ864sx0oGdBFPkPck8kI11CqBcy9+TjmMcAQwhvgs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761302020; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RKAk5FqmohFPTcleZaKxhNVhdl2kBLBX7lQbpIY+VAY=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UyG4gBzQL51xAQPq+uVi//1wtNeQx8PVtHMsHmDH7yaeQY7Rr86LC+NnlUAeJ/sh6gt7ySGUMU2TR8tj/cr4ff0+GfI8i9m3BZxL+TM9wDBf2x7dit4aAeFUWY9oenGTLyF5HQo3YPnl9d7FNN3vGfwtaiJGPhKaU0+OgkzKYSA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ctK0m2mF5z6GDDv; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 18:30:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.214.146.113]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 667CD140372; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 18:33:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.15) by dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:33:33 +0100 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:33:29 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Cristian Marussi CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] firmware: arm_scmi: Add System Telemetry driver Message-ID: <20251024113329.0000146e@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20250925203554.482371-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20250925203554.482371-7-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20251020172328.00002fc3@huawei.com> <20251021161529.00001468@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100009.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.83) To dubpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.214.146.113) On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:03:36 +0100 Cristian Marussi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 04:15:29PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:27:02 +0100 > > Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:23:28PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 21:35:50 +0100 > > > > Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > > > > > > > Add a new SCMI System Telemetry driver which gathers platform Telemetry > > > > > data through the new the SCMI Telemetry protocol and expose all of the > > > > > discovered Telemetry data events on a dedicated pseudo-filesystem that > > > > > can be used to interactively configure SCMI Telemetry and access its > > > > > provided data. > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > I'm not a fan of providing yet another filesystem but you didn't > > > > "did" was what this was meant to say. > > > > Sorry for the confusing garbage comment from me! > > > > > > lay out reasoning in the cover letter. > > > > > > Sorry, I dont understand..you mean here that I did NOT provide enough reasons > > > why I am adopting a new FS approach ? ... or I misunderstood the English ? > > > > > > .. because I did provide a lot of reasons (for my point-of-view) to go > > > for a new FS in the cover-letter... > > > > > > > > > > > One non trivial issue is that you'll have to get filesystem review on this. > > > > My review is rather superficial but a few things stood out. > > > > > > Well yes I would have expected that, but now the FS implementation > > > internals of this series is definetely immature and to be reworked (to > > > the extent of using a well-know deprecated FS mount api at first..) > > > > > > So I posted this V1 to lay-out the ideas and the effective FS API layout > > > but I was planning to extend the review audience once I have reworked fully > > > the series FS bits in the next V2... > > > > I'd suggest ABI docs for v2. That will match what you have in the cover letter > > but put it in the somewhat formal description format of Documentation/ABI/ > > > > Oh yes of course... the while docs/ stuff is still TBD...btw I am not even > sure if the whole driver will be required to be moved into fs/ as a > requirement while doing filesystem review...I suppose I will leave this > sort of reworks for the next reviews cycles.... > > ...and...if I may ask... is it linux-fsdevel the ML for this fs-related > stuff I suppose...not sure about maintainers looking at MAINTAINERS ... Seems resonable but beyond that I have no idea. Give it a go and see what happens. Probably also include kernfs related folk directly. They are likely to have opinions and might review if they have time. Jonathan > > Thanks a lot for having a look Jonathan. > Cristian >