From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D0EC433F5 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:14:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1346839AbiD1NRV (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:17:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57776 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234556AbiD1NRS (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2022 09:17:18 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5DC1BEA2 for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:14:04 -0700 (PDT) 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 BA2E21474; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.57.11.83]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FA3F3F73B; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:13:57 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Cristian Marussi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 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 22/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET checks Message-ID: <20220428131357.mbj5pksrnt5auotb@bogus> References: <20220330150551.2573938-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20220330150551.2573938-23-cristian.marussi@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220330150551.2573938-23-cristian.marussi@arm.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote: > Starting with SCMIv3.1, the PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET command allows a user > to request only one between max and min ranges to be changed, while leaving > the other untouched if set to zero in the request; anyway SCMIv3.1 states > also explicitly that you cannot leave both of those unchanged (zeroed) when > issuing such command: add a proper check for this condition. > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > index 65ffda5495d6..8f4051aca220 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > @@ -423,6 +423,9 @@ static int scmi_perf_limits_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > struct scmi_perf_info *pi = ph->get_priv(ph); > struct perf_dom_info *dom = pi->dom_info + domain; > > + if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(pi->version) >= 0x3 && !max_perf && !min_perf) > + return -EINVAL; > + Do we really need the version check here ? I agree it was explicitly added in v3.1, but it makes sense on any version really. No ? -- Regards, Sudeep From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A550CC433EF for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:15:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=GmubZtP0LbLMl7aVbHzwLym17bxiOYkV41GXo/ks7nM=; b=Uqvz/+ss9MgBaP bZoFeijFyCIMTJZlYmJ7sz5D1ehBz43LkWMYhTfyt/YcIgXn7JZoyA6q622X0FmjQKDJXOUp6sG2y XxFj+chq/PVP0FTcimPvoWbQqadLMqQPfh9TTrLPvNBSyvBekvXotKnWJxL6CSn1r2LhX7jlfS0rU uLXVcavCQnMxqbDA9IQdcUG31sHCPf/4VsZqNvbNP1tqCtyESS/dcqlGwnjvmxe+QohGS93jyVxqI BqXto9t7KOXt80cBj/1ePwxHAfLi8BIQIxRE/7HI+CrwNJT+v0JIRW1ZB15XeMNdlf28SjbfVr0SP Wg8vNrpSx98UiACiS6bQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nk3yE-006waS-G9; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:14:10 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1nk3yB-006wZ2-Ev for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:14:08 +0000 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 BA2E21474; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.57.11.83]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FA3F3F73B; Thu, 28 Apr 2022 06:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:13:57 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Cristian Marussi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 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 22/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET checks Message-ID: <20220428131357.mbj5pksrnt5auotb@bogus> References: <20220330150551.2573938-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com> <20220330150551.2573938-23-cristian.marussi@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220330150551.2573938-23-cristian.marussi@arm.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220428_061407_589946_4A15BDD7 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.70 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote: > Starting with SCMIv3.1, the PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET command allows a user > to request only one between max and min ranges to be changed, while leaving > the other untouched if set to zero in the request; anyway SCMIv3.1 states > also explicitly that you cannot leave both of those unchanged (zeroed) when > issuing such command: add a proper check for this condition. > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > index 65ffda5495d6..8f4051aca220 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > @@ -423,6 +423,9 @@ static int scmi_perf_limits_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > struct scmi_perf_info *pi = ph->get_priv(ph); > struct perf_dom_info *dom = pi->dom_info + domain; > > + if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(pi->version) >= 0x3 && !max_perf && !min_perf) > + return -EINVAL; > + Do we really need the version check here ? I agree it was explicitly added in v3.1, but it makes sense on any version really. No ? -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel