On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 09:16:36AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > Hi Cristian, Hi Johan, > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 11:53:52AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:34:44AM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:58:44AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > > Something like that, yes. :) I didn't try to implement it, but it seems > > > > like it should be possible implement this is a way that keeps the quirk > > > > handling isolated. > > > > > > I hope next week to have a better look at this, in tne meantime just a > > > few considerations.... > > > > > > Sooner or later we should have introduced some sort of quirk framework > > > in SCMI to deal systematically with potentially out-of-spec FW, but as > > > in the name, it should be some sort of framework where you have a table of > > > quirks, related activation conditions and a few very well isolated points > > > where the quirks are placed and take action if enabled...this does not > > > seem the case here where instead an ad-hoc param is added to the function > > > that needs to be quirked...this does not scale and will make the codebase > > > a mess IMHO... > > > > Sounds good. At least we have a good understanding now of how this > > particular firmware is broken so it would be great if you could use > > this as a test case for the implementation. > > > > In summary, we need to force the use of a fast channel for > > PERF_LEVEL_GET on these machines, or possibly fall back to the current > > behaviour of only using the domain attribute to determine whether the > > fast channels should be initialised. > > > > The latter may allow for a less intrusive implementation even if we'd > > still see: > > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to get FC for protocol 13 [MSG_ID:6 / RES_ID:0] - ret:-95. Using regular messaging. > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to get FC for protocol 13 [MSG_ID:6 / RES_ID:1] - ret:-95. Using regular messaging. > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to get FC for protocol 13 [MSG_ID:6 / RES_ID:2] - ret:-95. Using regular messaging. > > > > when not supported for all messages (e.g. with the current firmware). > > > > Anyway, after all of this babbling, I know, talk is cheap :D...so now I will shut > > > up and see if I can prototype something generic to deal with quirks, possibly > > > next week... > > Have you made any progress on the quirk framework prototyping? > I have not forgot, tried a few things, but nothing really to post as of now...dont wnat to rush either .... I was hoping to push something out at the end of this next merge window... > Do you need any input from Sibi on the protocol versioning for that? > No I am fine, I am planning anyway for something generic enough to be easy then to plug your own quirks separately... > We'd really like to enable cpufreq on this platform and ideally in 6.15. > I think that should be possible given that we now understand in what > ways the firmware is broken and what is needed to handle it even if we > still need to decide on how best to implement this. > v6.15 seems hard/impossible even using the original Sibi patch given the usual upstreaming-timeline of the SCMI stack where everything has to be usually reviewed and accepted by rc4/rc5.....so both Sibi initial patch and my own babbling were alreaady sort of late. Thanks, Cristian
