On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 01:29:19PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 09:16:36AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > 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... Sounds good, thanks. > > 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. Yes, sorry, I wasn't referring to Sibi's SCMI patches, but the devicetree changes needed to enable cpufreq on these platforms (that will go through the qcom tree). It may be a little late for that too, but with an understanding of the problem and a quirk implementation around the corner, we could enable cpufreq as long as we make sure that Sibi's per-channel FC fix (that addresses the FC warnings) is not merged without the quirk in place (to avoid the crashes). Johan
