From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEAD547209A; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:21:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792146099; cv=none; b=FdepwxlJKFyymTUZIwA0sdFFS5iY4qkiJaRltIJyyttT6x0Yf5bORitCC77FR5tAn31xgyYU+cP46GQnEkYSkPTxQHZs8CkGue6zMgPLvuA5bP+5COr6g3lsAvuCRfVeRCO61wehpRFKYgYYBqOPLQqrZMn11jEO/FkN5hGMmE4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792146099; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hJglFGaadsV/wbyEcUX3Z4qyfuj7vAwodrNb8C56c8w=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hRx24mPT0erCahXv6yKSdt5ull/NMtxMLA09Sk8PlBWMq0FPTJC2WyO0WS5jJcrHUza89ASRlOqT4TBsiWnjWggY46uRNYuk28yjU9ZjnbrjRw9jUUtlzWCLOZUDfTrsKA6do827RIr38HN1uLlbBgPRRdg/5rFKCFwAGzZ2bKw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SA5y25c5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="SA5y25c5" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0F671F000C4; Fri, 16 Oct 2026 10:21:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792146098; bh=ZLLh+H6AvF3pOzsah8RxxbzU39nSJ9TcPLlAcIWH0Mg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=SA5y25c5Ax9XiL89LHF60r7LTjc/isW/mANFnBpopAF7cnYAH68fLLHwbl1/OVtkd nurZ8/hyMKyst8EuUgHLk1ctDT2FNTC1X1UwhqJee9Yz7/+6gLU3Ase+3LoxnKUtbU D2+c9LWzP3DuNy8b4SQsWU12QwdVokU7l7zIifnGyYQZEguEO5b6WLau/Vee49QXmf PKdqLRCbvFFrR7FCt9HPFQdkxEdm9gPG9sc5H2zD5z9TOHutnFDhAHCKHV8raPJMmS GavfobPpuZyGynW0TZKRfAUSXMjrSgQoUM4wcU1xv3vSQs5E4MmFvIxvUP+TuyFKKq hHnVrmV03MAzw== Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 11:21:34 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Philip Radford Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arm-scmi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla , james.quinlan@broadcom.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, etienne.carriere@st.com, peng.fan@oss.nxp.com, michal.simek@amd.com, quic_sibis@quicinc.com, dan.carpenter@linaro.org, d-gole@ti.com, souvik.chakravarty@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 12/13] powercap: arm_scmi: Add get_power_uw to synthetic node Message-ID: <20261016-nostalgic-adaptable-crab-4eea62@sudeepholla> References: <20260909220437.1254412-1-philip.radford@arm.com> <20260909220437.1254412-13-philip.radford@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260909220437.1254412-13-philip.radford@arm.com> On Wed, Sep 09, 2026 at 10:04:36PM +0000, Philip Radford wrote: > Exposes the current power usage from the immediate children of the > synthetic (root) powercap node. Iterates over pr->spzones and sums per-zone > power. > > Signed-off-by: Philip Radford > --- > V8->V9 > - Removed redundant if (!pr) check from instance_root_get_power_uw() > - Stopped returning a partial sum if one child read fails > --- > drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c b/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c > index b5397d7675e6..aac0b00490b2 100644 > --- a/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c > +++ b/drivers/powercap/arm_scmi_powercap.c > @@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ > #define to_scmi_powercap_zone(z) \ > container_of(z, struct scmi_powercap_zone, zone) > > +#define to_scmi_powercap_root(z) \ > + container_of(z, struct scmi_powercap_root, instance_root.zone) > + > static const struct scmi_powercap_proto_ops *powercap_ops; > > struct scmi_powercap_zone { > @@ -453,9 +456,36 @@ static int instance_root_release(struct powercap_zone *pz) > return 0; > } > > -static int instance_root_get_power_uw(struct powercap_zone *pz, u64 *v) > +static int instance_root_get_power_uw(struct powercap_zone *pz, u64 *power_uw) > { > - *v = 0; > + struct scmi_powercap_root *pr = to_scmi_powercap_root(pz); > + struct scmi_powercap_zone *child; > + > + u64 p, acc = 0; > + int i, ret; > + > + if (!pz || !power_uw) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + for (i = 0; i < pr->num_zones; i++) { > + child = &pr->spzones[i]; > + > + if (!child->registered || child->invalid) > + continue; > + > + if (child->info->parent_id != SCMI_POWERCAP_ROOT_ZONE_ID) > + continue; > + > + ret = scmi_powercap_get_power_uw(&child->zone, &p); Should we skip domains without monitoring here as scmi_powercap_get_power_uw() return -EINVAL for such domains always ? If the system has one such node, you will always return error here ? -- Regards, Sudeep