On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > 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!? Yes using "ida" for unique index might work here as well AFAIU. It can be one of the possible solution for sure. -- Regards, Sudeep
