Re: [PATCH V5 0/2] arm_scmi: vendors: Qualcomm Generic Vendor Extensions

Sudeep Holla
2024-12-05T16:35:37Z

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 06:45:13AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> The QCOM SCMI vendor protocol provides a generic way of exposing a
> number of Qualcomm SoC specific features (like memory bus scaling)
> through a mixture of pre-determined algorithm strings and param_id
> pairs hosted on the SCMI controller. Introduce a client driver that
> uses the memlat algorithm string hosted on QCOM SCMI Vendor Protocol
> to detect memory latency workloads and control frequency/level of
> the various memory buses (DDR/LLCC/DDR_QOS).
>
> QCOM SCMI Generic Vendor protocol background:
> It was found that a lot of the vendor protocol used internally was
> for debug/internal development purposes that would either be super
> SoC specific or had to be disabled because of some features being
> fused out during production. This lead to a large number of vendor
> protocol numbers being quickly consumed and were never released
> either. Using a generic vendor protocol with functionality abstracted
> behind algorithm strings gave us the flexibility of allowing such
> functionality exist during initial development/debugging while
> still being able to expose functionality like memlat once they have
> matured enough. The param-ids are certainly expected to act as ABI
> for algorithms strings like MEMLAT.
>
> Thanks in advance for taking time to review the series.
>
> V4:
> * Splitting the series into vendor protocol and memlat client.
> Also the move the memlat client implementation back to RFC
> due to multiple opens.

Sorry if I missed the rationale for the split here from the previous
discussions, but I would like to see the DT bindings if any for all the
users first before I can merge this. I am happy to get this series reviewed
independently but my views might change looking at how it will be used as
I might get better idea looking at the users. I really don't like the
interface as well as the DT bindings that might be enforcing us to define.
I have given my initial comments there.

No need to respin it together immediately or even in future as along as
there is a reference for me to look at.

--
Regards,
Sudeep