Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Bypass setting fwnode for scmi cpufreq

[Peng Fan]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 03:45:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 03:13:29PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
>> index 2c853c84b58f530898057e4ab274ba76070de05e..7850eb7710f499888d32aebf5d99df63db8bfa26 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/bus.c
>> @@ -344,6 +344,21 @@ static void __scmi_device_destroy(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev)
>>  	device_unregister(&scmi_dev->dev);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static int
>> +__scmi_device_set_node(struct scmi_device *scmi_dev, struct device_node *np,
>> +		       int protocol, const char *name)
>> +{
>> +	/* cpufreq device does not need to be supplier from devlink perspective */
>> +	if ((protocol == SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF) && !strcmp(name, "cpufreq")) {
>
>I don't love this...  It seems like an hack.  Could we put a flag
>somewhere instead?  Perhaps in scmi_device?  (I'm just saying that
>because that's what we're passing to this function).

This means when creating scmi_device, a flag needs to be set which requires
to extend scmi_device_id to include a flag entry or else.

As below in scmi-cpufreq.c
{ SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF, "cpufreq", SCMI_FWNODE_NO }

I am not sure Sudeep or Cristian are happy with the idea or not.

But back to the patch here, we are in the path creating the scmi_device and
cpufreq scmi device seems the only one that cause issue. So it should be
fine using this patch?

Thanks,
Peng


>
>regards,
>dan carpenter
>