From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) (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 78ACC7407A; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720433243; cv=none; b=WaCuqNho8za+z+fr0X11t9OBuFp16Ohh9h3GZfdYf0KGlY/PNtWATQYFeCHHnZDOCUdSH/zSweIdWuwogxcndEMINO4RjYUlJ5cfWKECQbnA/jd3P89FQrkiJZoe+Dilom3b37ESyRvMJlBUBAVM9cXJBXsJLg6HDhuenFdhCaM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720433243; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LOJm3p4Nr/SY5w5HRVFRJTRX8LEqR9Rfkrg53sGrSdA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=em9kkl3AMtelmTILa0gUTzMd6caDPkAnFPrOwJ/RpF2DkQ2OkLo35Aco+GRTrrdOeUJlXhm2oWleRtt+hhH3XpYNM54E3h+dQ5XfPYFQauM4ejyGxrJDURfleH+2wm2HTf14e7+uXTjmtAwScpzjF9b7hJle/10VjioXEkgZ5CQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b=hnqaMp++; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b="hnqaMp++" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279864.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 467MblOT008824; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:07:12 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= ipVfybvVES0g4wxPIJHge/FLa6oHUAtzMjbTnicGPPs=; b=hnqaMp++J/uf1YAz w24xUNWAmizU4c5Qr4+OSVTk+tojxezxRP6Mhc9xxTLSpTqjdUJTT0cwYzw1jX8r CCxCgbehfPcRR6GdcVBM2jqHePMQghOmDZrUj83ySWbvZAGWrwVssyYP6mTiYFKu wdEp7MnGF2PYco+myMZzWJXooazvFtj9KQUe4bml5okE4ReGWroxUbJcGxEJXJmU LGRVq4txeK6IYuiy3El2ekwNVuMVLwbEOVsqHonXRaaKQZGDkNNGQF+weFD6icKt dB2Fq6HACuR6eHB0DH2vzrAo1tCa7ODTYk47UEZbaBWEoVLy+7DKhDnPwwPbPGa+ oeq4sA== Received: from nalasppmta02.qualcomm.com (Global_NAT1.qualcomm.com [129.46.96.20]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 406y3hb58r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:07:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com [10.47.209.196]) by NALASPPMTA02.qualcomm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTPS id 468A7BNa030623 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 8 Jul 2024 10:07:11 GMT Received: from [10.131.33.37] (10.80.80.8) by nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.9; Mon, 8 Jul 2024 03:07:07 -0700 Message-ID: <48ac18f3-b831-91ab-4993-d82749052d8d@quicinc.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:37:04 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: arm: Fix debugfs node creation failure Content-Language: en-US To: Sudeep Holla CC: , , , , , , , , , References: <20240703110741.2668800-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> <064274c4-3783-c59e-e293-dd53a8595d8e@quicinc.com> From: Sibi Sankar In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: V3ih71OpWE9WX07-nPCHl1BdKLvUNd1e X-Proofpoint-GUID: V3ih71OpWE9WX07-nPCHl1BdKLvUNd1e X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.28.16 definitions=2024-07-08_05,2024-07-05_01,2024-05-17_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=985 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2406140001 definitions=main-2407080079 On 7/5/24 18:34, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 09:16:29AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: >> >> On 7/4/24 16:02, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>> If there are 2 perf domains for a device or group of devices, there must >>> be something unique about each of these domains. Why can't the firmware >>> specify the uniqueness or the difference via the name? >>> >>> The example above seems firmware is being just lazy to update it. Also >>> for the user/developer/debugger, the unique name might be more useful >>> than just this number. >>> >>> So please use the name(we must now have extended name if 16bytes are less) >>> to provide unique names. Please stop working around such silly firmware >>> bugs like this, it just makes using debugfs for anything useful harder. >> >> This is just meant to address firmware that are already out in the wild. >> That being said I don't necessarily agree with the patch either since >> it's penalizing firmware that actually uses a proper name by appending >> something inherently less useful to it. Since, the using of an unique >> domain name isn't required by the spec, the need for it goes under the radar >> for vendors. Mandating it might be the right thing to do since >> the kernel seems inherently expect that. >> > > Well I would love if spec authors can agree and mandate this. But this is > one of those things I can't argue as I don't necessarily agree with the > argument. There are 2 distinct/unique domains but firmware authors ran out > of unique names for them or just can't be bothered to care about it. > > They can't run out of characters as well in above examples, firmware can > add some useless domain ID in the name if they can't be bothered or creative. > > So I must admit I can't be bothered as well with that honestly. Okay, I guess the conclusion is that if the firmware vendors don't care enough to provide unique names, they get to live without those debugfs nodes. Do we really want to register/expose scmi perf power-domains used by the CPU nodes? Given that scmi-cpufreq doesn't consume these power domains and can be voted upon by another consumer, wouldn't this cause a disconnect? -Sibi > -- > Regards, > Sudeep