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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F87C4CECE for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D0C21A4A for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:59:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388319AbfJNQ7B (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:59:01 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:49128 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727083AbfJNQ7A (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:59:00 -0400 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 9300E28; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (e107155-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E22063F718; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 17:58:51 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Sujeet Kumar Baranwal Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: SCMI & Devfreq Message-ID: <20191014165832.GA323@bogus> References: <20190913102304.GC2559@bogus> <20190916101505.GB6109@bogus> <20190919152300.GA11801@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:20:40PM +0000, Sujeet Kumar Baranwal wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > Per SCMI perf protocol, the MAX_OPPS macro which is 16, means that at max > there could be only 16 OPPs. In my platform implementation, I tried with 16 > OPPs but when OPPs info came linux perf.c file from SCP, it only showed 12 > OPPs only. > > Suspecting the rx buffer size, I increased the size to 256 and now the > message for all 16 OPPs were reliably received. > OK, but is there any reason why firmware can't use num_levels[31:16] i.e Number of remaining performance levels and [11:00] i.e.Number of performance levels that are returned by this call to break and send in 2 calls ? The interface was designed to work with minimum shmem size. > ***************** > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > index 449f713..737d675 100644 (file) > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ int scmi_handle_put(const struct scmi_handle *handle) > static const struct scmi_desc scmi_generic_desc = { > .max_rx_timeout_ms = 30, /* We may increase this if required */ > .max_msg = 20, /* Limited by MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN */ > - .max_msg_size = 128, > + .max_msg_size = 256, If you need this, I prefer to introduce new compatible for the platform scmi and add it as platform specific scmi_desc to start with. -- Regards, Sudeep