Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] firmware: arm_scmi: add SCMIv3.0 Sensors descriptors extensions

Sudeep Holla
2020-11-19T14:43:58Z

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:20:29PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> Hi Sudeep
>

[...]

> > > + S32_EXT(SENSOR_RES_EXP(ares));
> > > + dsize += sizeof(adesc->resolution);
> > > +
> > > + scmi_parse_range_attrs(&a->attrs,
> > > + &adesc->attrs);
> > > + dsize += sizeof(adesc->attrs);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + adesc = (typeof(adesc))((u8 *)adesc + dsize);
> >
> > Just thinking if we can avoid this my having union comprising of v1 and v2
> > structures ?
> >
>
> Not sure to understand, axis_descr are only v3.0 and in fact this is
> called only for v > 2 I think, BUT the problem is that both this and the
> main sensor descriptor v3 msg payloads are runtime variable, so that it
> is stated in the msg->extended_attrs itself if that particular sensor desc
> response that I'm parsing has the additional extended fields or not:
> so the dance with dsize to keep track of where the current response ends
> and when the next starts...but maybe I've not got really what you meant.
>

No worries, we can always improve later if possible, you can keep it as
for now.

[...]

> > > + * retrieved via a dedicated (optional) command.
> > > + * Since the command is optional, on error carry
> > > + * on without any update interval.
> > > + */
> > > + if (scmi_sensor_update_intervals(handle, s))
> > > + dev_info(handle->dev,
> > > + "Update Intervals not available for sensor ID:%d\n",
> > > + s->id);
> >
> > Can we drop the logging or make it _dbg ? Make flood in a system with 100s of
> > sensors.
> >
>
> Sure, I was wondering in fact what to do with this: because the command
> is optional but it seemed odd to me that an SCMIv3.0 sensor does not
> expose any update interval so I wanted to log somehow this anomaly.
> (but maybe it's just not an anomaly)
>

Anything optional can never be anomaly, there is high chance that f/w
authors will drop it as it is optional unless it is absolutely necessary.

--
Regards,
Sudeep