On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 04:53:39PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 15:32:24 +0000
Cristian Marussi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Clock rates are guaranteed to be returned in ascending order for SCMI clock
protocol versions greater than 1.0: in such a case, use bounded iterators
to minimize the number of message exchanges needed to discover min and max
rate.

Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>

quoted

+
+static int
+scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
+			      u32 clk_id, struct clock_info *cinfo)
+{
+	struct scmi_clock_desc *clkd = &cinfo->clkds[clk_id];
+	int ret;
+
+	/*
+	 * Since only after SCMI Clock v1.0 the returned rates are guaranteed to
+	 * be discovered in ascending order, lazy enumeration cannot be use for
+	 * SCMI Clock v1.0 protocol.
+	 */
+	if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(ph->version) > 0x1)
+		ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get_lazy(ph, clkd);
+	else
+		ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get_full(ph, clkd);
+
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	clkd->info.min_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MIN];
 	if (!clkd->rate_discrete) {
 		clkd->info.max_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MAX];
 		dev_dbg(ph->dev, "Min %llu Max %llu Step %llu Hz\n",
 			clkd->rates[RATE_MIN], clkd->rates[RATE_MAX],
 			clkd->rates[RATE_STEP]);
 	} else {
-		sort(clkd->rates, clkd->num_rates,
-		     sizeof(clkd->rates[0]), rate_cmp_func, NULL);
 		clkd->info.max_rate = clkd->rates[clkd->num_rates - 1];
+		dev_dbg(ph->dev, "Clock:%s DISCRETE:%d -> Min %llu Max %llu\n",
+			clkd->info.name, clkd->rate_discrete,
+			clkd->info.min_rate, clkd->info.max_rate);
 	}
-	clkd->info.min_rate = clkd->rates[RATE_MIN];
 
-	return 0;
+	return ret;

Why?  Far as I can see it's still always zero if you get here.

...well...simply bad refactoring late evening near beer o'clock time :P

I will fix.

Thanks,
Cristian