Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] firmware: arm_scmi: Misc Fixes

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 04:28:41PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 05:19:39PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 at 13:55, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are
> > > are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes to land.
> > >
> > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/
> > >
> > > Duplicate levels:
> > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 2976000 Power 218062 Latency 30us Ifreq 2976000 Index 10
> > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3206400 Power 264356 Latency 30us Ifreq 3206400 Index 11
> > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3417600 Power 314966 Latency 30us Ifreq 3417600 Index 12
> > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16
> > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16
> > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 4012800 Power 528848 Latency 30us Ifreq 4012800 Index 15
> > >
> > > ^^ exist because SCP reports duplicate values for the highest sustainable
> > > freq for perf domains 1 and 2. These are the only freqs that appear as
> > > duplicates and will be fixed with a firmware update. FWIW the warnings
> > > that we are addressing in this series will also get fixed by a firmware
> > > update but they still have to land for devices already out in the wild.
> > >
> > > V4:
> > > * Rework debugfs node creation patch [Ulf/Dmitry]
> > > * Reduce report level to dev_info and tag it with FW_BUG [Johan/Dmitry]
> > > * Add cc stable and err logs to patch 1 commit message [Johan]
> > 
> > Patch4 and patch5 applied for fixes to my pmdomain tree - and by
> > adding a stable tag to them, thanks!
> > 
> > Potentially I could help to take the other patches too, to keep things
> > together, but in that case I need confirmation that's okay to do so.
> 
> SCMI patches in these series are all reviewed (all but one even by Sudeep)
> so it is really up to Sudeep preference...(who is travelling now so it could
> take a bit to reply)

I have added my reviewed by now.

> ...moreover I am not sure if the SCMI patches in this
> series could end up with wome trivial conflicts against the scmi patches
> already queued at
> 
> 	sudeep/for-next/scmi/updates
> 
> (at least the perf related ones 2 and 3 probably not)
>

I did a quick check and no conflicts were observed. Let me know if you need
a branch with first 3 patches, but I need to do that today or after Sunday
as I will away from my computer for few more days again from tomorrow.

Let me know ASAP.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep