On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 04:28:41PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 05:19:39PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 at 13:55, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are > > > are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes to land. > > > > > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Duplicate levels: > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 2976000 Power 218062 Latency 30us Ifreq 2976000 Index 10 > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3206400 Power 264356 Latency 30us Ifreq 3206400 Index 11 > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3417600 Power 314966 Latency 30us Ifreq 3417600 Index 12 > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 4012800 Power 528848 Latency 30us Ifreq 4012800 Index 15 > > > > > > ^^ exist because SCP reports duplicate values for the highest sustainable > > > freq for perf domains 1 and 2. These are the only freqs that appear as > > > duplicates and will be fixed with a firmware update. FWIW the warnings > > > that we are addressing in this series will also get fixed by a firmware > > > update but they still have to land for devices already out in the wild. > > > > > > V4: > > > * Rework debugfs node creation patch [Ulf/Dmitry] > > > * Reduce report level to dev_info and tag it with FW_BUG [Johan/Dmitry] > > > * Add cc stable and err logs to patch 1 commit message [Johan] > > > > Patch4 and patch5 applied for fixes to my pmdomain tree - and by > > adding a stable tag to them, thanks! > > > > Potentially I could help to take the other patches too, to keep things > > together, but in that case I need confirmation that's okay to do so. > > SCMI patches in these series are all reviewed (all but one even by Sudeep) > so it is really up to Sudeep preference...(who is travelling now so it could > take a bit to reply) I have added my reviewed by now. > ...moreover I am not sure if the SCMI patches in this > series could end up with wome trivial conflicts against the scmi patches > already queued at > > sudeep/for-next/scmi/updates > > (at least the perf related ones 2 and 3 probably not) > I did a quick check and no conflicts were observed. Let me know if you need a branch with first 3 patches, but I need to do that today or after Sunday as I will away from my computer for few more days again from tomorrow. Let me know ASAP. -- Regards, Sudeep
