Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] firmware: arm_scmi: Harden clock protocol initialization

[Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>]

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 05:59:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 at 19:56, Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> wrote:
> > Add proper error handling on failure to enumerate clocks features or
> > rates.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>

Hi,

> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c
> 
> > @@ -1143,8 +1149,12 @@ static int scmi_clock_protocol_init(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph)
> >         for (clkid = 0; clkid < cinfo->num_clocks; clkid++) {
> >                 cinfo->clkds[clkid].id = clkid;
> >                 ret = scmi_clock_attributes_get(ph, clkid, cinfo);
> > -               if (!ret)
> > -                       scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(ph, clkid, cinfo);
> > +               if (ret)
> > +                       return ret;
> 
> This change breaks R-Car X5H with SCP FW SDKv4.28.0, as some clocks
> do not support the SCMI CLOCK_ATTRIBUTES command.
> Before, these clocks were still instantiated, but were further unusable.
> After, the whole clock driver fails to initialize, and no SCMI clocks
> are available at all.

...and this is exactly what I feared while doing this sort of hardening :P

So there are a few possible solutions (beside reverting this straight away)

The easy fix would be instead change the above in a

	if (ret)
		continue;

...with a bit of annoying accompanying FW_BUG logs, of course, to cause future
FW releases to fix this :D

Another option could be leave it as it is, since indeed it is the correct enforced
behaviour, being CLOCK_ATTRIBUTES a mandatory command, BUT add on top an ad-hoc SCMI
quirk targeting the affected FW releases...

This latter option, though, while enforcing the correct behaviour AND
fixing your R-Car issue, leaves open the door for a number of possible
failures of other unknowingly buggy Vendors similarly deployed firmwares...

...that could be solved with more quirks of course...but...worth it ?

Thoughts ?

Let's see also what @Sudeep thinks about this...

Thanks for testing !

Cristian