From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0135ECE587 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0C2A217D9 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:59:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="FUSomVRY" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C0C2A217D9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=oAdoUqn17vANG4YYSX87qncpOBPSdFMbwWbZ7f70SlA=; b=FUSomVRYBCTyGQ 7ReRPU5o62n0P11G0DvW8mYHOzddN3caw/iFpiJhO3ILWaVyLbS6r5qrdvPq597wVwbnAzF2pSgfE JJZac5RxnTUBX3aY7qVyjZoOCCJ1w2lgdsrXLwfcnz+tpm2IaBby+xSwku2zdSdQZWTVgSpXIYenz JU5DFJiF7/5TdW60PS7W8sWyXJxRCN/61n6CmSUkkZWWMNN8jVWuEEBbLn8spUjgmr3iWl758dm87 YIAixueiDUwBsMpdH51Rrpt2EkReZutsyjfyfZHnyk4Ph8XlEriox/Z0PMYxogqFONx8tP2T9dcnr m5LnUfJrpN4QRv7k+i5w==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iK3gW-00037u-Cw; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:59:04 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iK3gT-00037L-CM for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:59:02 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9300E28; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (e107155-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E22063F718; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:58:51 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Sujeet Kumar Baranwal Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: SCMI & Devfreq Message-ID: <20191014165832.GA323@bogus> References: <20190913102304.GC2559@bogus> <20190916101505.GB6109@bogus> <20190919152300.GA11801@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191014_095901_465021_AB0FD20C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 14.83 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Sudeep Holla , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:20:40PM +0000, Sujeet Kumar Baranwal wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > Per SCMI perf protocol, the MAX_OPPS macro which is 16, means that at max > there could be only 16 OPPs. In my platform implementation, I tried with 16 > OPPs but when OPPs info came linux perf.c file from SCP, it only showed 12 > OPPs only. > > Suspecting the rx buffer size, I increased the size to 256 and now the > message for all 16 OPPs were reliably received. > OK, but is there any reason why firmware can't use num_levels[31:16] i.e Number of remaining performance levels and [11:00] i.e.Number of performance levels that are returned by this call to break and send in 2 calls ? The interface was designed to work with minimum shmem size. > ***************** > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > index 449f713..737d675 100644 (file) > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ int scmi_handle_put(const struct scmi_handle *handle) > static const struct scmi_desc scmi_generic_desc = { > .max_rx_timeout_ms = 30, /* We may increase this if required */ > .max_msg = 20, /* Limited by MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN */ > - .max_msg_size = 128, > + .max_msg_size = 256, If you need this, I prefer to introduce new compatible for the platform scmi and add it as platform specific scmi_desc to start with. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel