From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> To: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com, james.quinlan@broadcom.com, Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, etienne.carriere@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, souvik.chakravarty@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] [DEBUG] firmware: arm_scmi: add custom_dummy SCMI devname Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:35:05 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201021113505.GD20482@e120937-lin> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c0a300b7-7589-bfb1-6731-f07fdd7391fd@linaro.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 10:49:23PM -0400, Thara Gopinath wrote: > > > On 10/14/20 11:05 AM, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > Add custom_dummy SCMI devname. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > index 55df134c2338..5c39a738866a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > @@ -993,6 +993,7 @@ static struct scmi_prot_devnames devnames[] = { > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_CLOCK, { "clocks" },}, > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_SENSOR, { "hwmon" },}, > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_RESET, { "reset" },}, > > + { SCMI_PROTOCOL_CUSTOM_DUMMY, { "custom_dummy" },}, > > Hi Cristian, > > Thanks for the sample dummy custom protocol and driver! > The problem with adding scmi devname into the array is that every time a > custom vendor protocol is added, the array has to be extended. Instead since > the scmi spec supports the range 0x80-0xff for custom protocols, why not > check for that range in scmi_create_protocol_devices and go ahead with > registering the creating the protocol device via > scmi_create_protocol_device? > Hi, so this is really a good point, and in fact in some earlier (non-public) iterations I had a mechanism to just get rid of these device tables, thinking that if you want to enable custom protocols loading, it seemed better to let the related devices being created dynamically at will, so that an SCMI driver can just 'declare' its own device name and that will be created if the corresponding protocol is found in the DT and implemented in fw. Anyway this complicated the code a lot in some dubious ways. In a built-in scenario you end up with your driver being probe before the platform SCMI driver, so you cannot create the device straight away in your driver (there's not even an SCMI bus still) and you anyway need the platform SCMI driver to be up and running to check the DT and initialize basic transport to talk to the fw and check the protocol is supported by fw before creating the device itself: so I ended up basically having the SCMI driver just 'requesting' some device name to the core and then having the core creating the device later on when the SCMI platform was probed iff the DT and the fw supported that protocol (or immediately if your driver was a module and the SCMI platform was already initialized) All of the above, even if working, led to a lot of machinery to track all these requested devices properly and properly create/destroy them, and also it does not seem the right thing to do, since it's basically mimicing/duplicating all the usual probe deferring standard mechanism. Maybe this could have been addressed in different ways but I've not explored further. So at the end I removed such dynamic device creation support from this series. Now you proposal would be, if I understood correctly, to just create straight away a custom device whenever its protocol is defined in the DT and supported by fw, so that the custom driver above would not have to declare anything statically, and it will just be associated with some "dev_proto_99" matching just on protocol number. I'd like this option because it simplifies a lot the above issues, but I don't think it is viable because in this way you are no more able to define 2 distinct SCMI drivers for the same protocol (like you can do now defining multiple names in the match table: as an example you could not create a different "custom_dummy_2" SCMI driver using the custom protocol 0x99, because there;s only one single "dev_proto_99" device created and already probed for "custom_dummy". So the problem is again that if you want to support multiple SCMI drivers they have to be able to declare their own devname, against which the platform SCMI driver can match and initialized if needed the underlying device. In short, I want certainly to explore the dynamic device creation further, but for the moment I put it apart trying to consolidate all the rest. Maybe I could re-introduce something better later on in future versions of this series, or maybe just address this a distinct series later on. Sorry for the flood-style email :D Thanks Cristian > > > }; > > static inline void > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Thara
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> To: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org> Cc: f.fainelli@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, james.quinlan@broadcom.com, Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com, souvik.chakravarty@arm.com, etienne.carriere@linaro.org, lukasz.luba@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] [DEBUG] firmware: arm_scmi: add custom_dummy SCMI devname Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:35:05 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201021113505.GD20482@e120937-lin> (raw) In-Reply-To: <c0a300b7-7589-bfb1-6731-f07fdd7391fd@linaro.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 10:49:23PM -0400, Thara Gopinath wrote: > > > On 10/14/20 11:05 AM, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > Add custom_dummy SCMI devname. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > index 55df134c2338..5c39a738866a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > @@ -993,6 +993,7 @@ static struct scmi_prot_devnames devnames[] = { > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_CLOCK, { "clocks" },}, > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_SENSOR, { "hwmon" },}, > > { SCMI_PROTOCOL_RESET, { "reset" },}, > > + { SCMI_PROTOCOL_CUSTOM_DUMMY, { "custom_dummy" },}, > > Hi Cristian, > > Thanks for the sample dummy custom protocol and driver! > The problem with adding scmi devname into the array is that every time a > custom vendor protocol is added, the array has to be extended. Instead since > the scmi spec supports the range 0x80-0xff for custom protocols, why not > check for that range in scmi_create_protocol_devices and go ahead with > registering the creating the protocol device via > scmi_create_protocol_device? > Hi, so this is really a good point, and in fact in some earlier (non-public) iterations I had a mechanism to just get rid of these device tables, thinking that if you want to enable custom protocols loading, it seemed better to let the related devices being created dynamically at will, so that an SCMI driver can just 'declare' its own device name and that will be created if the corresponding protocol is found in the DT and implemented in fw. Anyway this complicated the code a lot in some dubious ways. In a built-in scenario you end up with your driver being probe before the platform SCMI driver, so you cannot create the device straight away in your driver (there's not even an SCMI bus still) and you anyway need the platform SCMI driver to be up and running to check the DT and initialize basic transport to talk to the fw and check the protocol is supported by fw before creating the device itself: so I ended up basically having the SCMI driver just 'requesting' some device name to the core and then having the core creating the device later on when the SCMI platform was probed iff the DT and the fw supported that protocol (or immediately if your driver was a module and the SCMI platform was already initialized) All of the above, even if working, led to a lot of machinery to track all these requested devices properly and properly create/destroy them, and also it does not seem the right thing to do, since it's basically mimicing/duplicating all the usual probe deferring standard mechanism. Maybe this could have been addressed in different ways but I've not explored further. So at the end I removed such dynamic device creation support from this series. Now you proposal would be, if I understood correctly, to just create straight away a custom device whenever its protocol is defined in the DT and supported by fw, so that the custom driver above would not have to declare anything statically, and it will just be associated with some "dev_proto_99" matching just on protocol number. I'd like this option because it simplifies a lot the above issues, but I don't think it is viable because in this way you are no more able to define 2 distinct SCMI drivers for the same protocol (like you can do now defining multiple names in the match table: as an example you could not create a different "custom_dummy_2" SCMI driver using the custom protocol 0x99, because there;s only one single "dev_proto_99" device created and already probed for "custom_dummy". So the problem is again that if you want to support multiple SCMI drivers they have to be able to declare their own devname, against which the platform SCMI driver can match and initialized if needed the underlying device. In short, I want certainly to explore the dynamic device creation further, but for the moment I put it apart trying to consolidate all the rest. Maybe I could re-introduce something better later on in future versions of this series, or maybe just address this a distinct series later on. Sorry for the flood-style email :D Thanks Cristian > > > }; > > static inline void > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Thara _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-21 11:35 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-10-14 15:05 [PATCH 00/11] SCMI vendor protocols and modularization Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 01/11] firmware: arm_scmi: review protocol registration interface Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 19:03 ` Florian Fainelli 2020-10-14 19:03 ` Florian Fainelli 2020-10-14 20:20 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-10-14 20:20 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-10-15 8:42 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-15 8:42 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-15 9:41 ` Vincent Guittot 2020-10-15 9:41 ` Vincent Guittot 2020-10-15 9:58 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-15 9:58 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-21 2:46 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 2:46 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 10:08 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-21 10:08 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 02/11] firmware: arm_scmi: hide protocols' private data Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 19:19 ` Florian Fainelli 2020-10-14 19:19 ` Florian Fainelli 2020-10-15 8:52 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-15 8:52 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 03/11] firmware: arm_scmi: introduce common protocol interface Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-21 2:47 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 2:47 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 10:27 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-21 10:27 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-26 13:07 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-26 13:07 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-28 21:04 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-28 21:04 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 04/11] firmware: arm_scmi: refactor events registration Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 05/11] firmware: arm_scmi: make notify_priv really private Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 06/11] firmware: arm_scmi: add support for protocol modularization Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-21 2:47 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 2:47 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 10:30 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-21 10:30 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 07/11] [DEBUG] firmware: arm_scmi: add example custom protocol Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 08/11] [DEBUG] arm64: dts: juno: add example custom protocol support Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 09/11] [DEBUG] firmware: arm_scmi: add example SCMI driver for custom protocol Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:55 ` Randy Dunlap 2020-10-14 15:55 ` Randy Dunlap 2020-10-14 16:44 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 16:44 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 10/11] [DEBUG] firmware: arm_scmi: add custom_dummy SCMI devname Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-21 2:49 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 2:49 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-21 11:35 ` Cristian Marussi [this message] 2020-10-21 11:35 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-26 12:37 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-26 12:37 ` Thara Gopinath 2020-10-28 21:28 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-28 21:28 ` Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` [PATCH 11/11] [DEBUG][HACK] firmware: arm_scmi: force implemented protocol 0x99 Cristian Marussi 2020-10-14 15:05 ` Cristian Marussi
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20201021113505.GD20482@e120937-lin \ --to=cristian.marussi@arm.com \ --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com \ --cc=etienne.carriere@linaro.org \ --cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \ --cc=james.quinlan@broadcom.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \ --cc=souvik.chakravarty@arm.com \ --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ --cc=thara.gopinath@linaro.org \ --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.