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 382C5FEE4EA for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:43:58 +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=899D3xU+VmRrNKV7Q5+J3Me5Q/GZn5rTx06sv43M3rI=; b=RH/dV+ZAQSru+SQxLGZlOxhZQL TBwc8bGv4uLkcT5Rot0A+paVeecguc5zOH8szhywyVKRmOCdA2COyAavlOzYZg+hnF/lTMgZzBNnQ QsbIbGBVMNC3+VI+FI63gHsQrEZCn70t/jQU7SimKL0JqsiGwO/jOmXZshobJTdwBvhPhP/nL9Q2/ zxTCssguDqsd0ECvzeu9XES70CB8HHRPINhFqDPiRkReFsCuh7+J34h0+ysc2ZBJwVCF40p0kwtb7 SpNWEmIX3sHdVZtukQ/9V010nTBOe1rbShrE9zRs1wVubO6gG0mmMm1uWMXtJLsuxcMCBY1AHkTJF zr9RxKcQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vwHnc-00000009kXe-0C8O; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:43:52 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vwHnZ-00000009kXG-0GOi for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:43:51 +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 0D3C21516; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from pluto (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 027DD3F7BD; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:43:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:43:40 +0000 From: Cristian Marussi To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Cristian Marussi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, philip.radford@arm.com, james.quinlan@broadcom.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, etienne.carriere@foss.st.com, peng.fan@oss.nxp.com, michal.simek@amd.com, dan.carpenter@linaro.org, geert+renesas@glider.be, kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com, marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] firmware: arm_scmi: Use bound iterators to minimize discovered rates Message-ID: References: <20260227153225.2778358-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20260227153225.2778358-11-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20260227165339.000023f7@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260227165339.000023f7@huawei.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260228_024350_234551_028D8627 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.11 ) 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, Feb 27, 2026 at 04:53:39PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:32:24 +0000 > Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > Clock rates are guaranteed to be returned in ascending order for SCMI clock > > protocol versions greater than 1.0: in such a case, use bounded iterators > > to minimize the number of message exchanges needed to discover min and max > > rate. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi > > > + > > +static int > > +scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > > + u32 clk_id, struct clock_info *cinfo) > > +{ > > + struct scmi_clock_desc *clkd = &cinfo->clkds[clk_id]; > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* > > + * Since only after SCMI Clock v1.0 the returned rates are guaranteed to > > + * be discovered in ascending order, lazy enumeration cannot be use for > > + * SCMI Clock v1.0 protocol. > > + */ > > + if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(ph->version) > 0x1) > > + ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get_lazy(ph, clkd); > > + else > > + ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get_full(ph, clkd); > > + > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + clkd->info.min_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MIN]; > > if (!clkd->rate_discrete) { > > clkd->info.max_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MAX]; > > dev_dbg(ph->dev, "Min %llu Max %llu Step %llu Hz\n", > > clkd->rates[RATE_MIN], clkd->rates[RATE_MAX], > > clkd->rates[RATE_STEP]); > > } else { > > - sort(clkd->rates, clkd->num_rates, > > - sizeof(clkd->rates[0]), rate_cmp_func, NULL); > > clkd->info.max_rate = clkd->rates[clkd->num_rates - 1]; > > + dev_dbg(ph->dev, "Clock:%s DISCRETE:%d -> Min %llu Max %llu\n", > > + clkd->info.name, clkd->rate_discrete, > > + clkd->info.min_rate, clkd->info.max_rate); > > } > > - clkd->info.min_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MIN]; > > > > - return 0; > > + return ret; > Why? Far as I can see it's still always zero if you get here. ...well...simply bad refactoring late evening near beer o'clock time :P I will fix. Thanks, Cristian