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 A5D42CD37B4 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:41:34 +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=ncW73U5doQeQYQunuf94piSg0AjPdMcow9bTV+6qZFQ=; b=rT306a+Vb55ld2AgT4pjA0ESy3 YOXWaeLwACZy6AdH8mkDaFNdsqEN6mBWaAw+EL0rR0vyEq2NHYgjMghOR7RJfebcgqfTyZx1/303m L7OLrW8PyA0h+rXWxN54YcwmQoUdfZgzmA79/7ZuwCYg0xQj3R5w9Sm8m9ydakdmL2C7g3aBR2NvT EhbMrGDJieJ8IXGqQ+v9evCCsyzPdr8K5EtfV54YZM+weTq54mpcshECuaOaZbZ/MSQAWmNlZoXDV VfyO+YcGR2JDg9StIUksvUsA7WzI6zErHL+KCR0Zh3fAd9G0eYayJVn5JEXGijMu5l/8sfTPsgSKq 7m8RKv3g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1slpK5-00000004Obd-2ERl; Wed, 04 Sep 2024 12:41:21 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1slpHp-00000004OHi-1X8j for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2024 12:40:23 +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 249A9FEC; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (e107155-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.198.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C77FE3F73B; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 05:38:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:38:55 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Konrad Dybcio Cc: Johan Hovold , Sibi Sankar , cristian.marussi@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Ensure that the message-id supports fastchannel Message-ID: References: <20240904031324.2901114-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> <20240904031324.2901114-2-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240904_053901_475584_9F01500F X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.87 ) 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 Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 01:29:29PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 4.09.2024 9:00 AM, Johan Hovold wrote: [...] > > > > Unfortunately, this patch breaks resume from suspend on the x1e80100 crd: > > > > [ 26.919676] CPU4: Booted secondary processor 0x0000010000 [0x511f0011] > > [ 26.960607] arm-scmi firmware:scmi: timed out in resp(caller: do_xfer+0x164/0x568) > > [ 26.987142] cpufreq: cpufreq_online: ->get() failed > > > > and then the machine hangs (mostly, I saw an nvme timeout message after a > > while). > > > > Make sure you test suspend as well as some of the warnings I reported > > only show up during suspend. > > Eh it looks like PERF_LEVEL_GET (msgid 8) requires the use of FC, but > the firmware fails to inform us about it through BIT(0) in attrs.. > Just trying to understand things better here. So the firmware expects OSPM to just use FC only for PERF_LEVEL_GET and hence doesn't implement the default/normal channel for PERF_LEVEL_GET(I assume it returns error ?) but fails to set the attribute indicating FC is available for the domain. I am not sure if that is stupid choice or there is some cost benefit in not implementing PERF_LEVEL_GET via normal channel if that is a fact. I am very much interested to know the reason either way especially if it is latter. -- Regards, Sudeep