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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60F60E7716C for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 16:40:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=ZjEy0aw23/6E8gCN6l4+v6e28c6E01xkv9hb+E5Fl+A=; b=Qibq8bK7dEpL5PK6lLByfBi/sI /o6SP7MBirNM1hSPPyp+iMOfnWX3hsr/CzYvwE6/cjpyBSIgXgTQYnFZkcBNEcFsEgWHd66dHiDU7 7COVwFDKjTdVyJRUGB06aiH7+9G5HXjkWNeOJ8uuGE09mAb77WXYGMBRzvKM/DDZVuvyRo2vDjObw rFzRyt32hXomwNpc9J6Gko47uktEP8xMHMyVPyNQO7o5oDbFObSQndZLtC68Tfkfdj8MxEd2n0wg0 wgPbFDRiXoIrbOpYFcBjh0+b+S1/BL7XzMzO7mJEBe6a4uBfomRg8kD6q8MZdFozefdqDdWZRWU2T qtpVkMnw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tJEtm-0000000GmVW-3r9o; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 16:40:18 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tJEpF-0000000GlpL-2hhD for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2024 16:35:38 +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 41ECC1063; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e133711.arm.com [10.1.196.55]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CD9A3F5A1; Thu, 5 Dec 2024 08:35:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 16:35:33 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Sibi Sankar Cc: , , , , Sudeep Holla , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] arm_scmi: vendors: Qualcomm Generic Vendor Extensions Message-ID: References: <20241115011515.1313447-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20241115011515.1313447-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20241205_083537_723429_3EBB6644 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.67 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 06:45:13AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > The QCOM SCMI vendor protocol provides a generic way of exposing a > number of Qualcomm SoC specific features (like memory bus scaling) > through a mixture of pre-determined algorithm strings and param_id > pairs hosted on the SCMI controller. Introduce a client driver that > uses the memlat algorithm string hosted on QCOM SCMI Vendor Protocol > to detect memory latency workloads and control frequency/level of > the various memory buses (DDR/LLCC/DDR_QOS). > > QCOM SCMI Generic Vendor protocol background: > It was found that a lot of the vendor protocol used internally was > for debug/internal development purposes that would either be super > SoC specific or had to be disabled because of some features being > fused out during production. This lead to a large number of vendor > protocol numbers being quickly consumed and were never released > either. Using a generic vendor protocol with functionality abstracted > behind algorithm strings gave us the flexibility of allowing such > functionality exist during initial development/debugging while > still being able to expose functionality like memlat once they have > matured enough. The param-ids are certainly expected to act as ABI > for algorithms strings like MEMLAT. > > Thanks in advance for taking time to review the series. > > V4: > * Splitting the series into vendor protocol and memlat client. > Also the move the memlat client implementation back to RFC > due to multiple opens. Sorry if I missed the rationale for the split here from the previous discussions, but I would like to see the DT bindings if any for all the users first before I can merge this. I am happy to get this series reviewed independently but my views might change looking at how it will be used as I might get better idea looking at the users. I really don't like the interface as well as the DT bindings that might be enforcing us to define. I have given my initial comments there. No need to respin it together immediately or even in future as along as there is a reference for me to look at. -- Regards, Sudeep