Re: [PATCH v15 00/35] Introduce SCMI Telemetry support

[Sudeep Holla]

Hi Jonathan,

On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 04:38:09PM -0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > The upcoming SCMI v4.0 specification [0] introduces a new SCMI protocol
> > dedicated to System Telemetry.
> > 
> 
> Hi Cristian,
> 
> So, the main issue here is pretty much summarized by:
> 
>  28 files changed, 12801 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)
> (obviously there are tests etc, but it's still > 10k lines)
> 

Completely agreed and every time I want to review this, its just takes
less than 10s to deprioritise this just based on the size.

> There are relatively few reviewers who would even consider taking that on.

And you are definitely one of them. Thanks for the patience and the review
you have done so far.

> I foolishly thought it wouldn't be too bad (and I review a lot of code).
> By about 3/4 of the way though, probably much earlier, I know the quality
> of review went down considerably. Honestly it was probably a waste of
> time continuing but I'm stubborn like that.
> 

Much appreciated, please continue to be like that 😉.

> So, unless you have a path to bribing or sweet talking various folk to
> deal with reviewing this with each having to set aside multiple days
> to do it, likely repeating for a couple of versions yet, I think you've
> got to figure out out how to make the first patch set more manageable.
> Probably don't split it up as much as the mpam or CCA folk have had to,
> but you have a lot of colleagues who are experiencing the same problem
> at the moment. They may be able to advise.
> 
> So it would be nice if what was in that first patch set was 'functional'
> but I don't think it needs to function on every systems or support more
> than an absolutely minimal feature set.  Just fail to probe when you see
> something that isn't supported by that minimal set if that means
> the thing won't be functional.
> 

Yes I am thinking I will complete review of basic support and all
non-telemetry related patches here and see if we can queue them if not
merge.

> Once that's in place, over a couple of additional patch sets you can
> get to everything you have here.
> 

Agreed and sounds like a strategy that would work in making progress here.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep