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

Sudeep Holla
2025-02-19T10:45:28Z

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:36:19PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:24:52AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:09:49AM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
> >> A potential solution is not using reg in the protocol nodes. Define nodes
> >> as below:
> >> devperf {
> >> compatible ="arm,scmi-devperf";
> >> }
> >>
> >> cpuperf {
> >> compatible ="arm,scmi-cpuperf";
> >> }
> >>
> >> pinctrl {
> >> compatible ="arm,scmi-pinctrl";
> >> }
> >>
> >> The reg is coded in driver.
> >>
> >> But the upper requires restruction of scmi framework.
> >>
> >> Put the above away, could we first purse a simple way first to address
> >> the current bug in kernel? Just as I prototyped here:
> >> https://github.com/MrVan/linux/tree/b4/scmi-fwdevlink-v2
> >>
> >
> >Good luck getting these bindings merged. I don't like it as it is pushing
> >software policy or issues into to the devicetree. What we have as SCMI
> >binding is more than required for a firmware interface IMO. So, you are
>
> Would you mind share more info on other cases that SCMI not as firmware
> interface?
>
> >on your own to get these bindings approved as I am not on board with
> >these but if you convince DT maintainers, I will have a look at it then
> >to see if we can make that work really.
>
> The issues are common to SCMI, not i.MX specific.
> I just propose potential solutions. You are the SCMI maintainer, there
> is no chance to get bindings approved without you.
>

I am not blocking you. What I mentioned is I don't agree that DT can be used
to resolve this issue, but I don't have time or alternate solution ATM. So
if you propose DT based solution and the maintainers agree for the proposed
bindings I will take a look and help you to make that work. But I will raise
any objections I may have if the proposal has issues mainly around the
compatibility and ease of maintenance.

> No more ideas from me. Leave this to you in case you have better solution.
>

Unfortunately no, I don't have one. I haven't had time to sit and explore
the issue and think of any solution yet.

--
Regards,
Sudeep