Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] firmware: arm_scmi: Bypass setting fwnode for scmi cpufreq
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Date: 2025-02-06 11:42:22
Also in:
arm-scmi, imx, linux-gpio, lkml
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:31:19PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 06:52:20PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:quoted
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 03:45:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:quoted
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 03:13:29PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:quoted
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 }Yeah, I like that. - if ((protocol == SCMI_PROTOCOL_PERF) && !strcmp(name, "cpufreq")) { + if (scmi_dev->flags & SCMI_FWNODE_NO) { Or we could do something like "if (scmi_dev->no_fwnode) {"
I proposed a flag a few review ago about this, it shoule come somehow from the device_table above like Peng was proposing, so that a driver can just declare that does NOT need fw_devlink. Thanks, Cristian