From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DDE33C5553 for ; Thu, 14 May 2026 08:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778745606; cv=none; b=ElN/s8UkuI3E1uc4Umk6UgojQz8rLjDG3N9fq2LdzroIYvxjgTsXyxblhROvAKrfpHZF/2n4+QnnTee8a/VQaAbjZCcjVHpDyNK/yfmfhTGiINuQOitwDotoQvLPelMgqXbQitlw1XXkzmxgavP1RTDXwhljX30Q3nf+Wy4FcM8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778745606; c=relaxed/simple; bh=7RS/B2utUHTlwg1qtXcrxg9Ii1W0kvqhrAWWSiJuk5Y=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=sJ5C9+jhRJbJNxexIbz613WgLxbGNSzZASZhY53lrSOJ+WX06N+kf8SIy3o5oHESrTt3MuWF8Y3wkHMwP1klg0AJDteZKcM1RgCoCyuYqSpcr1fl3WuBtTARvRpZtypFGxLWq8lHhNmNnEkYix5IXAC3FWPf6OkpAxZVlMmwX7c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=IAj8PJv9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="IAj8PJv9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0E7F1C2BCB7; Thu, 14 May 2026 08:00:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778745606; bh=7RS/B2utUHTlwg1qtXcrxg9Ii1W0kvqhrAWWSiJuk5Y=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=IAj8PJv9yiytBALFtE1zJ9v7a3zMUz7VZBX6+Dnf1d4kznNjGlqHUgJhBuabjlgh5 GsfWtQsMKXk1J1402J9VUq6zDgUZlmTEf3yPvVezlAMnF5KP3nbP4mc5UTWdr1fWjJ b7V/txXB8cb6Xis43WdeXxnHvh1loWeiXuwZa8G3q2NA0kOxZvkoKOX9gE1+V/UyWn LfcWRgY07bVYRXbgdUrHGtHFnFTr+DGHbRkIqErAtMJhh31rlqgiUFFg6cDoC/xSou GzJuAA1OBuyE16V2u+AXBXkM9UXTY1V3AQ1rXnSG6BhSIQNfFbhSdtPbDnwfDhwmB/ JchryulQSdDVg== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] powercap: arm_scmi_powercap: Log number of powercap domains Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Alex Tran" Cc: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260513-scmi-client-probe-log-v2-1-36607e9dd540@oss.qualcomm.com> References: <20260513-scmi-client-probe-log-v2-1-36607e9dd540@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 08:00:05 +0000 Message-Id: <20260514080006.0E7F1C2BCB7@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-hwmon@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The log message incorrectly reports the number of 'Initialized' = domains using the count of 'Discovered' domains, leading to inaccurate and = contradictory logs. - [Low] Format string type mismatch for `pr->num_zones`. -- commit bbfaa4d885154a2acd690976aeb604fa1c8f0eb4 Author: Alex Tran powercap: arm_scmi_powercap: Log number of powercap domains This commit adds a debug log to report the number of powercap domains discovered from the firmware during probe. This helps confirm the firmware exposed powercap resources. > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c b/drivers/powercap/arm_= scmi_powercap.c > index ab66e9a3b1e2c..3efe3743cce0a 100644 > --- a/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c > +++ b/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c [ ... ] > @@ -496,6 +496,7 @@ static int scmi_powercap_probe(struct scmi_device *sd= ev) > return ret; > =20 > dev_set_drvdata(dev, pr); > + dev_dbg(dev, "Initialized %d powercap domains\n", pr->num_zones); Are all of these domains actually initialized? During the probe process, domains using an abstract power scale are explicitly skipped and marked as invalid (spz->invalid =3D true). scmi_zones_register() also tracks and logs the actual successfully registered count. If there are skipped domains, this will produce confusing logs, such as "Registered 3 SCMI Powercap domains !" from scmi_zones_register() followed by "Initialized 5 powercap domains" here. Should the log message say "Discovered" instead of "Initialized" to match the commit message? Also, this isn't a bug, but does this code use the correct format specifier for pr->num_zones? Since num_zones is an unsigned int in struct scmi_powercap_root, should this use %u instead of %d? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260513-scmi-clien= t-probe-log-v2-0-36607e9dd540@oss.qualcomm.com?part=3D1