Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Bypass setting fwnode for scmi cpufreq

Dan Carpenter
2025-02-06T11:53:30Z

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 06:52:20PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 03:45:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 03:13:29PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> >> index 2c853c84b58f530898057e4ab274ba76070de05e..7850eb7710f499888d32aebf5d99df63db8bfa26 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
> >> @@ -344,6 +344,21 @@ static void __scmi_device_destroy(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev)
> >> device_unregister(&scmi_dev->dev);
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int
> >> +__scmi_device_set_node(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev, struct device_node *np,
> >> + int protocol, const char *name)
> >> +{
> >> + /* cpufreq device does not need to be supplier from devlink perspective */
> >> + if ((protocol == SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF) && !strcmp(name, "cpufreq")) {
> >
> >I don't love this... It seems like an hack. Could we put a flag
> >somewhere instead? Perhaps in scmi_device? (I'm just saying that
> >because that's what we're passing to this function).
>
> This means when creating scmi_device, a flag needs to be set which requires
> to extend scmi_device_id to include a flag entry or else.
>
> As below in scmi-cpufreq.c
> { SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF, "cpufreq", SCMI_FWNODE_NO }
>

Yeah, I like that.

- if ((protocol == SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF) && !strcmp(name, "cpufreq")) {
+ if (scmi_dev->flags & SCMI_FWNODE_NO) {

Or we could do something like "if (scmi_dev->no_fwnode) {"

regards,
dan carpenter