On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 15:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:38:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > Sudeep, while I understand your point and I agree with it, it's really > > a simple fix that $subject patch is proposing. As the unique name > > isn't mandated by the SCMI spec, it looks to me that we should make a > > fix for it on the Linux side. > > > > Yes, I did come to the conclusion that this is inevitable but hadn't > thought much on the exact solution. This email and you merging the original > patch made me think a bit quickly now 😉 Alright, great! > > > I have therefore decided to queue up $subject patch for fixes. Please > > let me know if you have any other proposals/objections moving forward. > > The original patch may not work well with the use case Peng presented. > As the name and id may also match in their case, I was wondering if we > need to add some prefix like perf- or something to avoid the potential > clash across power and perf genpds ? I may be missing something still as > it is hard to visualise all possible case that can happen with variety > of platform and their firmware. > > In short, happy to have some fix for the issue in some form whichever > works for wider set of platforms. Okay, so I have dropped the $subject patch from my fixes branch for now, to allow us and Sibi to come up with an improved approach. That said, it looks to me that the proper fix needs to involve pm_genpd_init() in some way, as this problem with unique device naming isn't really limited to SCMI. Normally we use an "ida" to get a unique index that we tag on to the device's name, but maybe there is a better strategy here!? Kind regards Uffe
