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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A024C433DF for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C210F20773 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="SK/ySrhE" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C210F20773 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject: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=PRte43B8CZU4NQnrxdihlEAZ0WIpxNUpTbPPXqOUXO4=; b=SK/ySrhEYJstCvgAxidOTSxm6 QTzWaxlbtELWHHUQNviNdCRHO6pnrThrPoaLVxx+CB34mUib6mau2HopV1XJGWthGaFvIyQDmtNJB aexExpJUQ3xGJce1o02/CSBO8Pn66cBkCQpEsDJ7aIMTD0aHG1gtHOa2+HDSkBt5I0qLUYuxpErx2 4KD3aAUvK95xYGj0trWHrvFdilv3bkDxEoTwhkADHyJFvG0+ZABy5Dl42sUCcXNl38ECGbvLX8ac9 Ppgb5D4u46/UpVCupGBuAN41BRXKpCP6VMoHEtY2Ohw+FDuZkoH7DZRWHjn1ntAJbt8kcVFO5rZLL IigMretIg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kRteg-00070r-9V; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:58:06 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kRtee-0006ze-6Y for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:58:05 +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 48EA031B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 01:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 833103F66B; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 01:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:57:38 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Etienne Carriere Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] firmware: arm_scmi: smc transport supports multi-message pool Message-ID: <20201012085546.GA16519@bogus> References: <20201008143722.21888-1-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> <20201008143722.21888-4-etienne.carriere@linaro.org> <20201008211116.l6gbym2ypb6lzlo7@bogus> <20201009151752.fxqakqrritrgzo4r@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201009151752.fxqakqrritrgzo4r@bogus> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201012_045804_285323_91DFB33B X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.00 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peng Fan , Souvik Chakravarty , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" , Sudeep Holla , Vincent Guittot , Cristian Marussi 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 Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 04:17:52PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 23:11, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 04:37:21PM +0200, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > > There is no reason for the smc transport to restrict itself to a 1 > > > > message pool. More can be allocated, messages are copied from/to the > > > > shared memory only on SMC exit/entry hence SCMI driver can play with > > > > several messages. > > > > > > > > Use value of 20 to mimic mailbox transport implementation. > > > > > > What is the need to mimic ? > > > > I had to pick a value. I can't say whether 2, 5 or 20 is better. > > I looks how the mailbox transport did and used the same value > > as it seemed reasonable regarding its memory cost. > > > > > > > > > Any high value could fit. This should be something configurable. > > > > > > Why not 10 or 100 ? I see any value other than 1 is useless as we lock > > > the channel in send_message and we don't maintain a queue like mailbox. > > > > I'll check again. > > Playing with SCMI voltage domain [1], it happens that I needed several > > preallocated message buffers unless what regulators fail to be probed. > > > I may be missing something but I can't see how, we simply block in > send_message while mailbox has a queue of 20 which is why it has 20 there. > > The issue you are seeing could be different. Let me know if I am missing > something. > OK, I gave this some thought and realise that in-order to allow multiple requests simultaneously, we do need this value > 1. I will take this and make some tweaks to the commit log to indicate the same. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel