RE: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: perf: print domain name in error path

[Peng Fan]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: perf: print domain name in error
> path
> 
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:42:13PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > It would be easier to locate the problem if domain name is printed out.
> > And including a coding style update.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 10 +++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > index 345fff167b52..e98ca6d15b0c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct scmi_msg_resp_perf_domain_attributes {
> >  	__le32 rate_limit_us;
> >  	__le32 sustained_freq_khz;
> >  	__le32 sustained_perf_level;
> > -	    u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE];
> > +	u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE];
> 
> Spurious change ?

I just think this is a coding style cleanup, I could drop it in v2.

> 
> >  };
> >
> >  struct scmi_msg_perf_describe_levels { @@ -387,8 +387,8 @@
> > process_response_opp(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom,
> >
> >  	ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (ret)
> > -		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n",
> > -			 opp->perf, ret);
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s-
> ret:%d\n",
> > +			 opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret);
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline void
> > @@ -405,8 +405,8 @@ process_response_opp_v4(struct device *dev,
> struct
> > perf_dom_info *dom,
> >
> >  	ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (ret)
> > -		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n",
> > -			 opp->perf, ret);
> > +		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s -
> ret:%d\n",
> > +			 opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret);
> >
> 
> Are you really hitting these issues ? 

Yes. two levels had same freq on i.MX95, but we fixed.

Or is it just code
> observation/improvements ?
> 
> It looks good otherwise. You can also add the below change when you respin.

ok, will include in v2.

Thanks,
Peng.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
> 
> diff --git i/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> w/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> index 211e8e0aef2c..ef1c27a65552 100644
> --- i/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> +++ w/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> @@ -830,7 +830,8 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add(const struct
> scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
> 
>                 ret = dev_pm_opp_add_dynamic(dev, &data);
>                 if (ret) {
> -                       dev_warn(dev, "failed to add opp %luHz\n", freq);
> +                       dev_warn(dev, "[%d][%s]: Failed to add OPP[%d] %lu\n",
> +                                domain, dom->info.name, idx, freq);
>                         dev_pm_opp_remove_all_dynamic(dev);
>                         return ret;
>                 }