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 3F63B18FDD0; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 07:12:37 +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=1730877161; cv=none; b=KA46u6+yab1OMxKdug8BM1lonefg14SP+bBbgozKC53DLmNC3Sg6xB5AX+jBVjQ1rGr7uD35O4Z0ENn2tuO2cU4mHT/oF23un8QnhqU7U9p+80DJeVgPqkTC4J/QqlbiglYr0X2abcyfHfZYF5hkMG0ebg7wGoHFy/utVAmD7bs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730877161; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SO8YTU1NVvXwpEfqSfCpy54QLboK8BuKAV6p/cHhFIs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=p11+3wm7iGtyvxbwkjKt/tKNl/MX0IvxSHOMSq/h6MlnhCZqxMrYZudoATzBLDhQ3b1XTIIA2M9GQ0TnveukwRgGWQC7fjgui287Ikzz575J35rll7UbfwnE0DpYgWd/iHycgGOx+MlMov4G30B1kMJrLc2+RYnJ9UkyHG1EVJw= 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 245BF1063; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.57.64.60]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 744D13F66E; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:12:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 07:12:15 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Cristian Marussi Cc: Ulf Hansson , Sibi Sankar , johan@kernel.org, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com, dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, konradybcio@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, tstrudel@google.com, rafael@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] firmware: arm_scmi: Misc Fixes Message-ID: <20241106071215.jhnzcn4vkdfr3peg@bogus> References: <20241030125512.2884761-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@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, 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 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