Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:49:48 +0100 | From | Cristian Marussi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 22/22] firmware: arm_scmi: Add SCMIv3.1 PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET checks |
| |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 02:13:57PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 04:05:51PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > Starting with SCMIv3.1, the PERFORMANCE_LIMITS_SET command allows a user > > to request only one between max and min ranges to be changed, while leaving > > the other untouched if set to zero in the request; anyway SCMIv3.1 states > > also explicitly that you cannot leave both of those unchanged (zeroed) when > > issuing such command: add a proper check for this condition. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > index 65ffda5495d6..8f4051aca220 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > @@ -423,6 +423,9 @@ static int scmi_perf_limits_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > > struct scmi_perf_info *pi = ph->get_priv(ph); > > struct perf_dom_info *dom = pi->dom_info + domain; > > > > + if (PROTOCOL_REV_MAJOR(pi->version) >= 0x3 && !max_perf && !min_perf) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > Do we really need the version check here ? I agree it was explicitly added > in v3.1, but it makes sense on any version really. No ?
Indeed seemed a silly patch also to me but given that only in v3.1 it is explicitly stated that you cannot issue this command with both min and max ZEROED I though this could have broken older fw that allowed setting PERF_LIMITS_SET max=0 min=0
....maybe overthought ...
Thanks, Cristian
| |