On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 01:11:14PM GMT, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 19:33, Dmitry Baryshkov > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:41AM GMT, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > > The domain attributes returned by the perf protocol can end up > > > reporting identical names across domains, resulting in debugfs > > > node creation failure. Fix this failure by ensuring that pm domains > > > get a unique name using ida in pm_genpd_init. > > Thanks for working on this! > > > > > Can we make this opt-in or opt-out? Seeing numeric suffixes next to > > well-known power domain names (e.g. those comin from RPMh or the CPU > > domains) is a bit strange. Or maybe you can limit the IDA suffix just to > > the SCMI / perf domains? > > I was also thinking something along the lines of this. > > Another thing on top of what Dmitry suggests, could be to iterate > through the &gpd_list and compare the existing genpd->names with the > one that we are adding in pm_genpd_init(). In this way, we don't need > to add the IDA to more than those that really need it. > > What do you think? I have no strong preference. Your proposal sounds good to me too. > > [...] > > Kind regards > Uffe -- With best wishes Dmitry
