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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 6FF5FC433E7 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:19:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (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 21B5421D41 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 15:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="hDgK+Wt2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 21B5421D41 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+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=merlin.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=+WdeBXE5Jt8PTbTJP4X4GYqqzJCutez55uaoKoTnNi4=; b=hDgK+Wt2XRIPYb4xqJTGOSYu/ oNOCPRa1ow1yM7B4YNtVSexIbceLsGsd54/F0cg186/0mUplsBsPp5Zx5XHWb0sEzMOMk1Xh6G28k oEmSIK05SsgrSaNPdsfSjGxC9I7LhU/l7NZ/KJFcMwEjxQFZC2VWEvs3N3isCaJNE6NOMVhTuU52h Q2koIYkqhJNM+ShlneoPtLn4IZ86vmGwEFo3xQGV5zvaJ4ad1m/7Hztaqbfm6xQQLhv0we2ZGBsUj q4a6p2tQXUIEivn2CnTUwgD0zvUACebvB4Ei/NPKs+1hC/ajVue14dAh/tpJwCL5GI/hTNrQcuXOh O3nvOKOUA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kQu9l-0003NX-Pd; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:18:05 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kQu9i-0003MX-3V for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:18:02 +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 BB40C1063; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.57.53.233]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0261C3F70D; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 08:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:17:52 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Etienne Carriere Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] firmware: arm_scmi: smc transport supports multi-message pool Message-ID: <20201009151752.fxqakqrritrgzo4r@bogus> References: <20201008143722.21888-1-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> <20201008143722.21888-4-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> <20201008211116.l6gbym2ypb6lzlo7@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201009_111802_204456_67991E94 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.60 ) 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: Peng Fan , Souvik Chakravarty , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" , Sudeep Holla , Vincent Guittot , Cristian Marussi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 23:11, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:37:21PM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > There is no reason for the smc transport to restrict itself to a 1 > > > message pool. More can be allocated, messages are copied from/to the > > > shared memory only on SMC exit/entry hence SCMI driver can play with > > > several messages. > > > > > > Use value of 20 to mimic mailbox transport implementation. > > > > What is the need to mimic ? > > I had to pick a value. I can't say whether 2, 5 or 20 is better. > I looks how the mailbox transport did and used the same value > as it seemed reasonable regarding its memory cost. > > > > > > Any high value could fit. This should be something configurable. > > > > Why not 10 or 100 ? I see any value other than 1 is useless as we lock > > the channel in send_message and we don't maintain a queue like mailbox. > > I'll check again. > Playing with SCMI voltage domain [1], it happens that I needed several > preallocated message buffers unless what regulators fail to be probed. I may be missing something but I can't see how, we simply block in send_message while mailbox has a queue of 20 which is why it has 20 there. The issue you are seeing could be different. Let me know if I am missing something. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel