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 6B241168C7; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:16:07 +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=1722006969; cv=none; b=RhCQfYrOLlVoiKGivXLSQhHqPi7yemc2uVM0C3g/yhoj60cpU+VsZ5SyEOGD3JQUCDlt0XDKDKHHwkDjbmzx1yTsjZulLSskFhxGuTOjK+EaluuDWLviHCu2ClDND43AX3mq3FuuFM7BlazkykhDi7GVlEtUPZJk2xNYYpMA2yg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722006969; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SjYuF0wHvMidJzi2rqAX+BCgJqz8mbzUz6DGGs/7Ki0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=sMTt7RmYz4Q6Jmr1IPrNoC1XObKjpzzXXWvdiLXnBvBsDX7KJ6hHktY7HMRadGdZeTddtIpMVTpjPwxidETfY94lGcyRAlQu5iFrh+mbFACb6tQgxoRV8uV7qHDDLspv6GLWJqITM78fdOYzSF+iJJLBeJqAzmmAChbd1SA80KA= 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 54A7A1007; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 161E33F73F; Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 16:16:03 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Etienne Carriere Cc: , Cristian Marussi , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: fix voltage description in failure cases Message-ID: References: <20240725065317.3758165-1-etienne.carriere@foss.st.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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: <20240725065317.3758165-1-etienne.carriere@foss.st.com> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 08:53:17AM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > Reset the reception buffer max size when a voltage domain description > request fails, for example when the voltage domain returns an access > permission error (SCMI_ERR_ACCESS) unless what only a single 32bit > word is read back for the remaining voltage description requests > responses leading to invalid information. The side effect of this > issue is that the voltage regulators registered from those remaining > SCMI voltage domain were assigned a wrong regulator name. > > Signed-off-by: Etienne Carriere > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > index 2175ffd6cef5..f1a7c04ae820 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > @@ -229,8 +229,10 @@ static int scmi_voltage_descriptors_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > /* Retrieve domain attributes at first ... */ > put_unaligned_le32(dom, td->tx.buf); > /* Skip domain on comms error */ > - if (ph->xops->do_xfer(ph, td)) > + if (ph->xops->do_xfer(ph, td)) { > + ph->xops->reset_rx_to_maxsz(ph, td); I am fine with this to keep it simple, but thought I will check my thoughts. We usually use reset_rx_to_maxsz in iterators as we don't know the expected size of the response, whereas here it must be max sizeof(*resp_dom). That said, we don't have any helpers and changing xfer->rx.len directly doesn't looks good ? Or may be it is OK ? Thoughts ? -- Regards, Sudeep