On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:17:06AM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:

On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 3:42 AM Cristian Marussi
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:31:19PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

quoted

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.

Sorry, looks I replied to v1 series. Can you take a look at that
response please?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGETcx87Stfkru9gJrc1sf=PtFGLY7=jrfFaCzK5Z4hq+2TCzg@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

If that suggestion I gave there would work, then that's the cleanest
approach. This patch series is just kicking the can down the road (or
down an inch).

Thanks for the reply, I will answer on that other thread.
Cristian