From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FD71D86CF; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 12:38:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725453542; cv=none; b=rxxSuA6F2YOegkhJzPGmtEJyySvKNieouqq7F8dAN9ctUmo4kOjDt2DwtvXZPCXzqX+FD5ViqIAMB6Fhl2GNGDxYI/nOyIs5guvibUwo8dqqjhREQ9CnuNXAzS6AIoZyAkFSEQuunaIabXC52Cj5t+AQHf437iQKaUp8Qm0vccY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725453542; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XID3dQgcBE0cBiH/qg0Sw2vAwn3NoD4jAts+rjeKbWo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BniSqidLGxZwCz4n7peopYpyRaJ0M+XY3F4OxFLmGb3a2nCufW0h6MW/zU40DbxNnmzKqiVx5kcszagSJDaA5URVIJ2Xj2h+z7oOcu6D4ZEiFpdyxgOZcoY3hnxMmS3UJcoDsDjsIhfwHIQU2ZG8nfB05s3SHOsnpEIfsqmw3i8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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