From: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>, <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
<cristian.marussi@arm.com>, <andersson@kernel.org>,
<jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <quic_rgottimu@quicinc.com>,
<quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com>, <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
Amir Vajid <avajid@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/7] firmware: arm_scmi: Add QCOM vendor protocol
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:26:05 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <de2b3cd3-95f9-4fc4-4d51-35be32a788e9@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <34af183c-638a-49f3-b0b3-784f757282b2@linaro.org>
On 2/10/24 04:15, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 8.02.2024 12:44, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/18/24 01:45, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/17/24 18:34, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>>>> From: Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com>
>>>>
>>>> SCMI QCOM vendor protocol provides interface to communicate with SCMI
>>>> controller and enable vendor specific features like bus scaling capable
>>>> of running on it.
>>>
>>
>> Hey Konrad,
>>
>>> "QCOM protocol" sounds overly generic, especially given how many
>>> different vendor protocols have historically been present in
>>> QC firmware..
>>
>> Here it is specifically mentioned that way to communicate that
>> this is the only vendor protocol exposed by Qualcomm. It handles
>> all the other protocols which were usually handled separately on
>> older SoCs.
>
> I'm no SCMI specialist but that's a rather.. peculiar design decision,
> I guess
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Ramakrishna Gottimukkula <quic_rgottimu@quicinc.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ramakrishna Gottimukkula <quic_rgottimu@quicinc.com>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Amir Vajid <avajid@quicinc.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Amir Vajid <avajid@quicinc.com>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> So, this is another 0x80 protocol, different to the one that has
>>> been shipping on devices that got released with msm-5.4, msm-5.10
>>> and msm-5.15 [1][2]. They're totally incompatible (judging by the
>>> msg format), use the same protocol ID and they are (at a glance)
>>> providing access to the same HW/FW/tunables.
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this up but like I already explained the only
>> SoC that was actually shipped with ^^ protocol was SC7180 and we
>> already have an alternative arrangement for memory dvfs upstreamed
>> on it.
>
> Ok, that makes sense.
>
> I took my 8550 phone, enabled some debug prints and it looks like the
> only SCMI protocol exposed is 0x19 (which doesn't seem to be defined).
>
> Not sure what other devices would spit out, but I assume what you said
> is true.
>
> For completeness, the reported rev is:
>
> arm-scmi firmware:scmi: SCMI Protocol v2.0 'Qualcomm:' Firmware version 0x10000
>
>> Further more it handles only L3 dvfs so it makes zero sense
>> to try to upstream the older protocol given that working dvfs solution
>> already exists upstream.
>
> We don't have any sort of governor for it though, so I wouldn't go as
> far as calling it working :P
It is a working solution (it is equivalent to the compute mon mapping in
downstream implementation) but isn't feature complete ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
>
>> All other SoCs don't have the 0x80 protocol
>> enabled for memory dvfs in production.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if this can be trusted not to change again.. Unless
>>> we get a strong commitment that all platforms (compute, mobile,
>>> auto, iot, whatever) stick to this one..
>>
>> This is exactly that consolidation effort from Qualcomm. Here they
>> expose just one vendor protocol and implement all the algorithms just
>> through it.
>
> And I'm very glad you're taking such consolidation steps.. Just a little
> worried that in case this protocol's extensibility is exhausted, the next
> one would need to be called.. "Qualcomm2"?
We don't see ^^ happening in the near future (meaning this doesn't apply
to just X1E). The consolidation would still be better than spinning out
n number of protocols per SoC.
-Sibi
>
> Konrad
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-12 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-17 17:34 [RFC 0/7] firmware: arm_scmi: Qualcomm Vendor Protocol Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 17:34 ` [RFC 1/7] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom: Add CPUCP mailbox controller bindings Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 19:53 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-02-08 10:22 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-02-08 23:14 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-02-12 5:48 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-01-30 17:12 ` Rob Herring
2024-02-08 10:28 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-02-08 15:58 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2024-02-28 17:37 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-01-17 17:34 ` [RFC 2/7] mailbox: Add support for QTI CPUCP mailbox controller Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 19:03 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-01-17 17:34 ` [RFC 3/7] firmware: arm_scmi: Add QCOM vendor protocol Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 19:09 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-02-12 8:31 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 20:15 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-01-17 20:31 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-02-08 11:44 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-02-09 22:45 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-02-12 8:56 ` Sibi Sankar [this message]
2024-01-17 20:15 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-01-18 17:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-02-12 9:14 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-02-12 17:39 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-02-29 14:16 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-02-29 14:24 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-01-17 17:34 ` [RFC 4/7] soc: qcom: Utilize qcom scmi vendor protocol for bus dvfs Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 20:28 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-02-12 10:33 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 20:41 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-02-12 10:24 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-02-12 13:22 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-02-20 15:07 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-02-28 17:31 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-02-29 14:27 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-02-20 16:19 ` Cristian Marussi
2024-02-29 14:41 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-01-17 17:34 ` [RFC 5/7] arm64: dts: qcom: x1e80100: Add cpucp mailbox and sram nodes Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 17:34 ` [RFC 6/7] arm64: dts: qcom: x1e80100: Enable cpufreq Sibi Sankar
2024-01-18 15:25 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-02-12 9:28 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 17:34 ` [RFC 7/7] arm64: dts: qcom: x1e80100: Enable LLCC/DDR dvfs Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 20:38 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-02-12 10:05 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-01-17 20:47 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-02-12 9:47 ` Sibi Sankar
2024-02-12 18:11 ` [RFC 0/7] firmware: arm_scmi: Qualcomm Vendor Protocol 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=de2b3cd3-95f9-4fc4-4d51-35be32a788e9@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_sibis@quicinc.com \
--cc=andersson@kernel.org \
--cc=avajid@quicinc.com \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jassisinghbrar@gmail.com \
--cc=konrad.dybcio@linaro.org \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com \
--cc=quic_rgottimu@quicinc.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).