Re: [PATCH 06/10] firmware: arm_scmi: Add System Telemetry driver

[Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 04:15:29PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 11:27:02 +0100
> Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:23:28PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2025 21:35:50 +0100
> > > Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Add a new SCMI System Telemetry driver which gathers platform Telemetry
> > > > data through the new the SCMI Telemetry protocol and expose all of the
> > > > discovered Telemetry data events on a dedicated pseudo-filesystem that
> > > > can be used to interactively configure SCMI Telemetry and access its
> > > > provided data.  
> > >  
> > 
> > Hi,
> >  
> > > I'm not a fan of providing yet another filesystem but you didn't
> 
> "did" was what this was meant to say.
> 
> Sorry for the confusing garbage comment from me!
> 
> > > lay out reasoning in the cover letter.  
> > 
> > Sorry, I dont understand..you mean here that I did NOT provide enough reasons
> > why I am adopting a new FS approach ? ... or I misunderstood the English ?
> > 
> > .. because I did provide a lot of reasons (for my point-of-view) to go
> > for a new FS in the cover-letter...
> > 
> > > 
> > > One non trivial issue is that you'll have to get filesystem review on this.
> > > My review is rather superficial but a few things stood out.  
> > 
> > Well yes I would have expected that, but now the FS implementation
> > internals of this series is definetely immature and to be reworked (to
> > the extent of using a well-know deprecated FS mount api at first..)
> > 
> > So I posted this V1 to lay-out the ideas and the effective FS API layout
> > but I was planning to extend the review audience once I have reworked fully
> > the series FS bits in the next V2...
> 
> I'd suggest ABI docs for v2. That will match what you have in the cover letter
> but put it in the somewhat formal description format of Documentation/ABI/
> 

Oh yes of course... the while docs/ stuff is still TBD...btw I am not even
sure if the whole driver will be required to be moved into fs/ as a
requirement while doing filesystem review...I suppose I will leave this
sort of reworks for the next reviews cycles....

...and...if I may ask... is it linux-fsdevel the ML for this fs-related
stuff I suppose...not sure about maintainers looking at MAINTAINERS ...

Thanks a lot for having a look Jonathan.
Cristian