Re: [PATCH 03/11] firmware: arm_scmi: Simplify clock rates exposed interface
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2026-03-02 13:09:28
Also in:
arm-scmi, linux-clk, linux-renesas-soc, lkml
Hi Cristian, On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 at 13:48, Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 at 16:33, Cristian Marussi [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Move needlessly exposed fields away from scmi_clock_info into the new internal struct scmi_clock_desc while keeping exposed only the two new min_rate and max_rate fields for each clock. No functional change. Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>quoted
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c@@ -157,13 +157,27 @@ struct scmi_clock_rate_notify_payld { __le32 rate_high; }; +struct scmi_clock_desc { + u32 id; + bool rate_discrete; + unsigned int num_rates; + u64 rates[SCMI_MAX_NUM_RATES]; +#define RATE_MIN 0 +#define RATE_MAX 1 +#define RATE_STEP 2Any specific reason you are not using a union here, like in scmi_clock_info?
Ah, "[PATCH 06/11] firmware: arm_scmi: Make clock rates allocation dynamic" answers that.
quoted
+ struct scmi_clock_info info; +};quoted
--- a/include/linux/scmi_protocol.h +++ b/include/linux/scmi_protocol.h@@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ struct scmi_clock_info { bool rate_ctrl_forbidden; bool parent_ctrl_forbidden; bool extended_config; + u64 min_rate; + u64 max_rate; union { struct { int num_rates;You patch description read like the actual rates would be moved from scmi_clock_info to scmi_clock_desc, i.e. _removed_ here?
And these members are actually removed in "[PATCH 05/11] firmware:
arm_scmi: Drop unused clock rate interfaces". Please reflect that in
this patch description.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds