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 46B782D8DC5; Fri, 27 Jun 2025 13:11:22 +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=1751029883; cv=none; b=V1pvm50S932wQalpB6vmG/pWLC1ZlUmCootBqMIizJo+kGe0pc9bqwXPkUHyN3JACz1x215vcZUyaHtIPhvegQZZAqyQtEoDN5xN9ooQ+ICLNBs3UcO3YnB1vLAnLzShpJy9CKwze866tuiM2mO4mrZ9w+SEIpT2+htR3cV4F+o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751029883; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4Vxv6m1FLYRrhTVG6vptpa8t9PYLpynpN3yl3kH7qE4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KbmcUWx7BynqPbRjkiVr8ZcI+f0rulYev94Y+zCbElRV4abzOL4EoMGiUK+/Yoc/T/TTMNfhNlWtS7aD/dBonM2ZNgqdagwCwyItww1eWy/2r3RLQPiC3YSRwp4QOKQng1RjbQ68pL5Wqw6DIoNbivTcHRZrL57gtRAl3zuj/Dk= 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 717AF1A00; Fri, 27 Jun 2025 06:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pluto (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81E3F3F66E; Fri, 27 Jun 2025 06:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 14:11:16 +0100 From: Cristian Marussi To: Peng Fan Cc: Sudeep Holla , Cristian Marussi , Shawn Guo , Sascha Hauer , Pengutronix Kernel Team , Fabio Estevam , arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, imx@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] firmware: arm_scmi: imx: Support getting silicon info of MISC protocol Message-ID: References: <20250627-sm-misc-api-v1-v1-0-2b99481fe825@nxp.com> <20250627-sm-misc-api-v1-v1-4-2b99481fe825@nxp.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: <20250627-sm-misc-api-v1-v1-4-2b99481fe825@nxp.com> On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:03:47PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > MISC protocol supports getting the silicon information including revision > number, part number and etc. Add the API for user to retrieve the > information from SM. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan > --- > .../firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h | 8 +++++ > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c > index 8ce4bf92e6535af2f30d72a34717678613b35049..d5b24bc4d4ca6c19f4cddfaea6e9d9b32a4c92f7 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ enum scmi_imx_misc_protocol_cmd { > SCMI_IMX_MISC_CTRL_SET = 0x3, > SCMI_IMX_MISC_CTRL_GET = 0x4, > SCMI_IMX_MISC_DISCOVER_BUILDINFO = 0x6, > + SCMI_IMX_MISC_SI_INFO = 0xB, > SCMI_IMX_MISC_CFG_INFO = 0xC, > SCMI_IMX_MISC_CTRL_NOTIFY = 0x8, > }; > @@ -79,6 +80,13 @@ struct scmi_imx_misc_cfg_info_out { > u8 cfgname[MISC_MAX_CFGNAME]; > }; > > +struct scmi_imx_misc_si_info_out { > + __le32 deviceid; > + __le32 sirev; > + __le32 partnum; > + u8 siname[MISC_MAX_SINAME]; > +}; > + > static int scmi_imx_misc_attributes_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > struct scmi_imx_misc_info *mi) > { > @@ -335,12 +343,38 @@ static int scmi_imx_misc_cfg_info(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > return ret; > } > > +static int scmi_imx_misc_silicon_info(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > + struct scmi_imx_misc_system_info *info) > +{ > + struct scmi_imx_misc_si_info_out *out; > + struct scmi_xfer *t; > + int ret; > + > + ret = ph->xops->xfer_get_init(ph, SCMI_IMX_MISC_SI_INFO, 0, sizeof(*out), &t); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + ret = ph->xops->do_xfer(ph, t); > + if (!ret) { > + out = t->rx.buf; > + info->deviceid = le32_to_cpu(out->deviceid); > + info->sirev = le32_to_cpu(out->sirev); > + info->partnum = le32_to_cpu(out->partnum); > + strscpy(info->siname, out->siname, MISC_MAX_SINAME); > + } > + > + ph->xops->xfer_put(ph, t); > + > + return ret; > +} > + > static const struct scmi_imx_misc_proto_ops scmi_imx_misc_proto_ops = { > .misc_cfg_info = scmi_imx_misc_cfg_info, > .misc_ctrl_set = scmi_imx_misc_ctrl_set, > .misc_ctrl_get = scmi_imx_misc_ctrl_get, > .misc_ctrl_req_notify = scmi_imx_misc_ctrl_notify, > .misc_discover_build_info = scmi_imx_discover_build_info, > + .misc_silicon_info = scmi_imx_misc_silicon_info, > }; > > static int scmi_imx_misc_protocol_init(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph) > diff --git a/include/linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h b/include/linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h > index bb0c35b5d6705acddd6c83c31474482a2667b418..0e639dfb5d16e281e2ccf006a63694b316c431f4 100644 > --- a/include/linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h > +++ b/include/linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h > @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ struct scmi_imx_misc_ctrl_notify_report { > #define MISC_MAX_BUILDDATE 16 > #define MISC_MAX_BUILDTIME 16 > #define MISC_MAX_CFGNAME 16 > +#define MISC_MAX_SINAME 16 > > struct scmi_imx_misc_system_info { > u32 buildnum; > @@ -63,6 +64,11 @@ struct scmi_imx_misc_system_info { > u8 time[MISC_MAX_BUILDTIME]; > u32 msel; > u8 cfgname[MISC_MAX_CFGNAME]; > + /* silicon */ > + u32 deviceid; > + u32 sirev; > + u32 partnum; > + u8 siname[MISC_MAX_SINAME]; > }; Same observation here...maybe embed a struct dedicated to this....BUT in this case the silicon_info are NOT meant to change during a boot (and even across a reboot really) so why a distinct command from build_info since both infos has the same lifetime ? (I understand the quality of the info returned is drastically different HW vs SW) > > struct scmi_imx_misc_proto_ops { > @@ -76,6 +82,8 @@ struct scmi_imx_misc_proto_ops { > u32 ctrl_id, u32 evt_id, u32 flags); > int (*misc_discover_build_info)(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > struct scmi_imx_misc_system_info *info); > + int (*misc_silicon_info)(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > + struct scmi_imx_misc_system_info *info); > }; > > /* See LMM_ATTRIBUTES in imx95.rst */ Other than this, no strong opinion anyway. Reviewed-by: Cristian Marussi Thanks, Cristian