Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Misc Fixes

[Ulf Hansson]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 08:07, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are
> are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land.
>
> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> The following warnings remain unadressed:
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16
>
> Duplicate levels:
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 2976000 Power 218062 Latency 30us Ifreq 2976000 Index 10
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3206400 Power 264356 Latency 30us Ifreq 3206400 Index 11
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3417600 Power 314966 Latency 30us Ifreq 3417600 Index 12
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16
> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 4012800 Power 528848 Latency 30us Ifreq 4012800 Index 15
>
> ^^ exist because SCP reports duplicate values for the highest sustainable
> freq for perf domains 1 and 2. These are the only freqs that appear as
> duplicates and will be fixed with a firmware update. FWIW the warnings
> that we are addressing in this series will also get fixed by a firmware
> update but they still have to land for devices already out in the wild.
>
> V2:
> * Include the fix for do_xfer timeout
> * Include the fix debugfs node creation failure
> * Include Cristian's fix for skipping opp duplication
>
> V1:
> * add missing MSG_SUPPORTS_FASTCHANNEL definition.
>
> Base branch: next-20241004
>
> Cristian Marussi (1):
>   firmware: arm_scmi: Skip adding bad duplicates
>
> Sibi Sankar (3):
>   firmware: arm_scmi: Ensure that the message-id supports fastchannel
>   pmdomain: core: Fix debugfs node creation failure
>   mailbox: qcom-cpucp: Mark the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag
>

Is there a preferred way to merge this?

I can certainly pick the pmdomain patch, as it looks independent for
the other. Or let me know if you prefer that I take them all?

Kind regards
Uffe