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 3CE8E421EEB; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:43:48 +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=1772275430; cv=none; b=S5SNNjny2lEB2GACzVZIKeJ7378FlqoXaEVEUk14FoymqTyDL3/EIh5wpu8r+brsdAEhToZGKIB3qORJarelrFkDKyzujuDEqXSbB4r+pLQv/waoENuTc0iTOP1zvHA6SBDiaBzHILvHwy2kF/bXHZ0LFrsjqxwYR2d+Wl557XA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772275430; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hidSDrD8KCcUuqVL8DmgYJwQYVoN2ONSHO9/fzM98Hs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TNrjUzRrJ1qbcRL1tPRTQhNTixgWUHe76AZmTxX53A50xewTpnXWxOgNsT7leOU6rsvTJXVdMxZHNVxlUqeHyPcW5Lr/tAP0Lq5FrHGMH2AyPx1nCs9v/qSHM5HvlDjHEKljMV/ZRPOz7zz+QA0MlCC6LSGoQfp8g43IpaE1kHw= 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 0D3C21516; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:43:42 -0800 (PST) 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 027DD3F7BD; Sat, 28 Feb 2026 02:43:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:43:40 +0000 From: Cristian Marussi To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: Cristian Marussi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, philip.radford@arm.com, james.quinlan@broadcom.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, etienne.carriere@foss.st.com, peng.fan@oss.nxp.com, michal.simek@amd.com, dan.carpenter@linaro.org, geert+renesas@glider.be, kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com, marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] firmware: arm_scmi: Use bound iterators to minimize discovered rates Message-ID: References: <20260227153225.2778358-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20260227153225.2778358-11-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20260227165339.000023f7@huawei.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: <20260227165339.000023f7@huawei.com> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 04:53:39PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:32:24 +0000 > Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > Clock rates are guaranteed to be returned in ascending order for SCMI clock > > protocol versions greater than 1.0: in such a case, use bounded iterators > > to minimize the number of message exchanges needed to discover min and max > > rate. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi > > > + > > +static int > > +scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > > + u32 clk_id, struct clock_info *cinfo) > > +{ > > + struct scmi_clock_desc *clkd = &cinfo->clkds[clk_id]; > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* > > + * Since only after SCMI Clock v1.0 the returned rates are guaranteed to > > + * be discovered in ascending order, lazy enumeration cannot be use for > > + * SCMI Clock v1.0 protocol. > > + */ > > + if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(ph->version) > 0x1) > > + ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get_lazy(ph, clkd); > > + else > > + ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get_full(ph, clkd); > > + > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + clkd->info.min_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MIN]; > > if (!clkd->rate_discrete) { > > clkd->info.max_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MAX]; > > dev_dbg(ph->dev, "Min %llu Max %llu Step %llu Hz\n", > > clkd->rates[RATE_MIN], clkd->rates[RATE_MAX], > > clkd->rates[RATE_STEP]); > > } else { > > - sort(clkd->rates, clkd->num_rates, > > - sizeof(clkd->rates[0]), rate_cmp_func, NULL); > > clkd->info.max_rate = clkd->rates[clkd->num_rates - 1]; > > + dev_dbg(ph->dev, "Clock:%s DISCRETE:%d -> Min %llu Max %llu\n", > > + clkd->info.name, clkd->rate_discrete, > > + clkd->info.min_rate, clkd->info.max_rate); > > } > > - clkd->info.min_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MIN]; > > > > - return 0; > > + return ret; > Why? Far as I can see it's still always zero if you get here. ...well...simply bad refactoring late evening near beer o'clock time :P I will fix. Thanks, Cristian