Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1465093 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 00/13] scpi: Add support for legacy SCPI protocol

Started byNeil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
First post2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
Last post2016-08-23 17:10 +0200
Articles 4 on this page of 24 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 00/13] scpi: Add support for legacy SCPI protocol Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
    [PATCH 06/13] scpi: add priv_scpi_ops and fill legacy structure Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 06/13] scpi: add priv_scpi_ops and fill legacy structure Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-19 18:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 06/13] scpi: add priv_scpi_ops and fill legacy structure Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-23 10:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 06/13] scpi: add priv_scpi_ops and fill legacy structure Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-23 17:00 +0200
    [PATCH 04/13] scpi: Add legacy SCP functions calling legacy_scpi_send_message Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 04/13] scpi: Add legacy SCP functions calling  legacy_scpi_send_message Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-19 18:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 04/13] scpi: Add legacy SCP functions calling  legacy_scpi_send_message Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-23 10:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 04/13] scpi: Add legacy SCP functions calling  legacy_scpi_send_message Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-23 16:50 +0200
    [PATCH 09/13] scpi: implement rockchip support via the vendor_msg mechanism Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
    [PATCH 01/13] scpi: Add vendor_send_message to enable access to vendor commands Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 01/13] scpi: Add vendor_send_message to enable access to  vendor commands Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-19 03:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 01/13] scpi: Add vendor_send_message to enable access to  vendor commands Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-19 10:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 01/13] scpi: Add vendor_send_message to enable access to  vendor commands Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-19 12:40 +0200
    [PATCH 11/13] dt-bindings: Add support for Amlogic GXBB SCPI Interface Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 11/13] dt-bindings: Add support for Amlogic GXBB SCPI  Interface Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-08-19 15:50 +0200
    [PATCH 08/13] scpi: add a vendor_msg mechanism in case the mailbox message differs Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 08/13] scpi: add a vendor_msg mechanism in case the  mailbox message differs Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-19 18:50 +0200
    [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-18 12:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not  supported Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-19 18:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not  supported Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-23 10:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not  supported Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-23 17:00 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not  supported Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-08-23 17:10 +0200
            Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not  supported Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> - 2016-08-23 17:10 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1468380 — Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported

FromNeil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
Date2016-08-23 10:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported
Message-ID<s9ffQ-1oj-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1466554
On 08/19/2016 06:46 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/08/16 11:11, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> In Amlogic GXBB Legacy SCPI, the LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SCPI_CAPABILITIES report
>> as SCPI_ERR_SUPPORT, so do not fail if this command is not supported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> index 3fe39fe..d3be4c5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>> @@ -1111,12 +1111,13 @@ err:
>>          ret = scpi_info->ops->init_versions(scpi_info);
>>      else
>>      ret = scpi_init_versions(scpi_info);
>> -    if (ret) {
>> +    if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>          dev_err(dev, "incorrect or no SCP firmware found\n");
>>          scpi_remove(pdev);
>>          return ret;
>>      }
>>
> 
> Why not deal it in init_versions itself.
> 
>> +    if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>      _dev_info(dev, "SCP Protocol %d.%d Firmware %d.%d.%d version\n",
>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
> 
> Why not have default value like 0.0 ? Just add a comment. Since get
> version is exported out, IMO having default value makes more sense. What
> do you think ?
> 
>> @@ -1124,15 +1125,16 @@ err:
>>            FW_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->firmware_version),
>>            FW_REV_PATCH(scpi_info->firmware_version));
>>
>> +        ret = sysfs_create_groups(&dev->kobj, versions_groups);
>> +        if (ret)
>> +            dev_err(dev, "unable to create sysfs version group\n");
>> +    }
>> +
> 
> Again this can stay as is if we have default.
> 

Printing version 0.0 firmware 0.0.0 is a nonsense for me...

Neil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1468612 — Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported

FromSudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date2016-08-23 17:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported
Message-ID<s9llf-5mY-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1468380

On 23/08/16 09:23, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 08/19/2016 06:46 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18/08/16 11:11, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> In Amlogic GXBB Legacy SCPI, the LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SCPI_CAPABILITIES report
>>> as SCPI_ERR_SUPPORT, so do not fail if this command is not supported.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>> index 3fe39fe..d3be4c5 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>> @@ -1111,12 +1111,13 @@ err:
>>>          ret = scpi_info->ops->init_versions(scpi_info);
>>>      else
>>>      ret = scpi_init_versions(scpi_info);
>>> -    if (ret) {
>>> +    if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>          dev_err(dev, "incorrect or no SCP firmware found\n");
>>>          scpi_remove(pdev);
>>>          return ret;
>>>      }
>>>
>>
>> Why not deal it in init_versions itself.
>>
>>> +    if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>      _dev_info(dev, "SCP Protocol %d.%d Firmware %d.%d.%d version\n",
>>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>
>> Why not have default value like 0.0 ? Just add a comment. Since get
>> version is exported out, IMO having default value makes more sense. What
>> do you think ?
>>
>>> @@ -1124,15 +1125,16 @@ err:
>>>            FW_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->firmware_version),
>>>            FW_REV_PATCH(scpi_info->firmware_version));
>>>
>>> +        ret = sysfs_create_groups(&dev->kobj, versions_groups);
>>> +        if (ret)
>>> +            dev_err(dev, "unable to create sysfs version group\n");
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>
>> Again this can stay as is if we have default.
>>
>
> Printing version 0.0 firmware 0.0.0 is a nonsense for me...
>

OK 0.0 was a wrong example. May be 0.1 ?

Since the driver has already exposed, hypothetically user-space can use
that information, so IMO, we need to expose some static version for pre-v1.0

I am surprised that capability is not supported as this was present even
in that legacy SCPI. Do you know what happens if you send that command ?
Have you done some experiments on that ?

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1468621 — Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported

FromSudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Date2016-08-23 17:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported
Message-ID<s9luW-5FE-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1468612

On 23/08/16 15:55, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 08/23/2016 04:54 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/08/16 09:23, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2016 06:46 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/08/16 11:11, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> In Amlogic GXBB Legacy SCPI, the LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SCPI_CAPABILITIES report
>>>>> as SCPI_ERR_SUPPORT, so do not fail if this command is not supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>>> index 3fe39fe..d3be4c5 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>>> @@ -1111,12 +1111,13 @@ err:
>>>>>          ret = scpi_info->ops->init_versions(scpi_info);
>>>>>      else
>>>>>      ret = scpi_init_versions(scpi_info);
>>>>> -    if (ret) {
>>>>> +    if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>>>          dev_err(dev, "incorrect or no SCP firmware found\n");
>>>>>          scpi_remove(pdev);
>>>>>          return ret;
>>>>>      }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not deal it in init_versions itself.
>>>>
>>>>> +    if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>>>      _dev_info(dev, "SCP Protocol %d.%d Firmware %d.%d.%d version\n",
>>>>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>>>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>>>
>>>> Why not have default value like 0.0 ? Just add a comment. Since get
>>>> version is exported out, IMO having default value makes more sense. What
>>>> do you think ?
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1124,15 +1125,16 @@ err:
>>>>>            FW_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->firmware_version),
>>>>>            FW_REV_PATCH(scpi_info->firmware_version));
>>>>>
>>>>> +        ret = sysfs_create_groups(&dev->kobj, versions_groups);
>>>>> +        if (ret)
>>>>> +            dev_err(dev, "unable to create sysfs version group\n");
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Again this can stay as is if we have default.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Printing version 0.0 firmware 0.0.0 is a nonsense for me...
>>>
>>
>> OK 0.0 was a wrong example. May be 0.1 ?
>>
>> Since the driver has already exposed, hypothetically user-space can use
>> that information, so IMO, we need to expose some static version for pre-v1.0
>>
>> I am surprised that capability is not supported as this was present even
>> in that legacy SCPI. Do you know what happens if you send that command ?
>> Have you done some experiments on that ?
>>
>
> I've experimented and returns EOPNOTSUPP, Amlogic confirmed to us the command was not implemented.
>
> This a clearly a corner-case.
>

OK, thanks for the confirmation.
Not exporting anything could be kind of breaking ABI as it was not made
optional when introduced :( (you can blame me ;))

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1468624 — Re: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported

FromNeil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
Date2016-08-23 17:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/13] scpi: ignore init_versions failure if reported not supported
Message-ID<s9luW-5FE-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1468612
On 08/23/2016 04:54 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/08/16 09:23, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> On 08/19/2016 06:46 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/08/16 11:11, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> In Amlogic GXBB Legacy SCPI, the LEGACY_SCPI_CMD_SCPI_CAPABILITIES report
>>>> as SCPI_ERR_SUPPORT, so do not fail if this command is not supported.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>> index 3fe39fe..d3be4c5 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scpi.c
>>>> @@ -1111,12 +1111,13 @@ err:
>>>>          ret = scpi_info->ops->init_versions(scpi_info);
>>>>      else
>>>>      ret = scpi_init_versions(scpi_info);
>>>> -    if (ret) {
>>>> +    if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>>          dev_err(dev, "incorrect or no SCP firmware found\n");
>>>>          scpi_remove(pdev);
>>>>          return ret;
>>>>      }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why not deal it in init_versions itself.
>>>
>>>> +    if (ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>>>      _dev_info(dev, "SCP Protocol %d.%d Firmware %d.%d.%d version\n",
>>>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>>>            PROTOCOL_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->protocol_version),
>>>
>>> Why not have default value like 0.0 ? Just add a comment. Since get
>>> version is exported out, IMO having default value makes more sense. What
>>> do you think ?
>>>
>>>> @@ -1124,15 +1125,16 @@ err:
>>>>            FW_REV_MINOR(scpi_info->firmware_version),
>>>>            FW_REV_PATCH(scpi_info->firmware_version));
>>>>
>>>> +        ret = sysfs_create_groups(&dev->kobj, versions_groups);
>>>> +        if (ret)
>>>> +            dev_err(dev, "unable to create sysfs version group\n");
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Again this can stay as is if we have default.
>>>
>>
>> Printing version 0.0 firmware 0.0.0 is a nonsense for me...
>>
> 
> OK 0.0 was a wrong example. May be 0.1 ?
> 
> Since the driver has already exposed, hypothetically user-space can use
> that information, so IMO, we need to expose some static version for pre-v1.0
> 
> I am surprised that capability is not supported as this was present even
> in that legacy SCPI. Do you know what happens if you send that command ?
> Have you done some experiments on that ?
> 

I've experimented and returns EOPNOTSUPP, Amlogic confirmed to us the command was not implemented.

This a clearly a corner-case.

Neil

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web