From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0b-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.180.131]) (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 D1E1B17DE15; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 07:09:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.180.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728284954; cv=none; b=U4h3PZ1xgEyv5/e+Lp6NxtlYghv/b3cCKjThT1A+KgbrJyZQsXFohKgr2WQl3/sxszHOEMxdS+4v5VroORJz/CfL2h9sUOW9khlGI6SBIp8cZ8/MSxqeyAh6dPuHlTH/RgRQub7XSo/2TuszwLjegLCTEjM6y1hAPJkvcaPgQVY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1728284954; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HaYluipwIXVvdOFAJ9zPfQ+R9ZmE1ePxVV5rbpyspfQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=jkUGw1sqGTvVF70XDuATq/YepnVnuOW8q3HbLrpIBVtGxicTdOIsqU9x3WEvf9k72G7zUQMM11ZTMBfTEz56nRtu9tUuXPaRHSbzuzjyx2wInLbIViutu4gblqu69XH0JflREkbc2KnFbBE9J5boDYZblR5bnuBZUYOAGFVniqo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b=k9gJOplw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.180.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=quicinc.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=quicinc.com header.i=@quicinc.com header.b="k9gJOplw" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279871.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4974TXLZ005308; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 07:08:58 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= 7OiBlFCcy+EsRXW8qMeYAkYGqWC12eyHX2jjrnsKEvk=; b=k9gJOplwfo2xbQDp ch32EP1Ytroil0LNAerBlCuQvEKaHge45GuBVxRk/tLQPPvlyYCAeYKkXwbz/1j0 c4vBuLn/Nh31krpOjb0BuTZtVEXm6UJe+LxvwrYgEiKr7N+OMinirn76hYdkf4O/ 4+XtoPUNfqP1FsolhpQnG+vrYUiFNP8nirlMwXdGr1nDTAr9UGUPbnBMOGt+bB5S NbG0Flssu/Nf0bgkrrxtlg8ipUEagpU/rdivUbyJr0sd/Q1AiR47osuQCjXho0Ft NEpvE/1c4as75bIMHTXG6O+TzqC7koWBhj3aptPGmKIR4gwyf1rZoRbKKTRWDECJ 4bY7Jw== Received: from nalasppmta02.qualcomm.com (Global_NAT1.qualcomm.com [129.46.96.20]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 422xqnu8yc-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 07 Oct 2024 07:08:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com [10.47.209.196]) by NALASPPMTA02.qualcomm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 49778uPS004008 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 7 Oct 2024 07:08:56 GMT Received: from [10.131.33.37] (10.80.80.8) by nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.9; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 00:08:52 -0700 Message-ID: <25015664-22a7-2d4b-7ba7-ef9611fb3045@quicinc.com> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 12:38:49 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: arm: Fix debugfs node creation failure To: Sudeep Holla , Ulf Hansson CC: , , , , , , , , , Peng Fan References: <20240703110741.2668800-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com> <064274c4-3783-c59e-e293-dd53a8595d8e@quicinc.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Sibi Sankar In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.52.223.231) To nalasex01a.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.209.196) X-QCInternal: smtphost X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6200 definitions=5800 signatures=585085 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 6rlIe34IG3MUdHAYsCgaAX2GUJsA_PUm X-Proofpoint-GUID: 6rlIe34IG3MUdHAYsCgaAX2GUJsA_PUm X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1039,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.60.29 definitions=2024-09-06_09,2024-09-06_01,2024-09-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2409260000 definitions=main-2410070049 On 8/15/24 19:16, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 12:46:15PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 at 15:31, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:38:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>> >>>> Sudeep, while I understand your point and I agree with it, it's really >>>> a simple fix that $subject patch is proposing. As the unique name >>>> isn't mandated by the SCMI spec, it looks to me that we should make a >>>> fix for it on the Linux side. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I did come to the conclusion that this is inevitable but hadn't >>> thought much on the exact solution. This email and you merging the original >>> patch made me think a bit quickly now 😉 >> >> Alright, great! >> >>> >>>> I have therefore decided to queue up $subject patch for fixes. Please >>>> let me know if you have any other proposals/objections moving forward. >>> >>> The original patch may not work well with the use case Peng presented. >>> As the name and id may also match in their case, I was wondering if we >>> need to add some prefix like perf- or something to avoid the potential >>> clash across power and perf genpds ? I may be missing something still as >>> it is hard to visualise all possible case that can happen with variety >>> of platform and their firmware. >>> >>> In short, happy to have some fix for the issue in some form whichever >>> works for wider set of platforms. >> >> Okay, so I have dropped the $subject patch from my fixes branch for >> now, to allow us and Sibi to come up with an improved approach. >> >> That said, it looks to me that the proper fix needs to involve >> pm_genpd_init() in some way, as this problem with unique device naming >> isn't really limited to SCMI. Normally we use an "ida" to get a unique >> index that we tag on to the device's name, but maybe there is a better >> strategy here!? > > Yes using "ida" for unique index might work here as well AFAIU. It can be > one of the possible solution for sure. Just re-spun it with ida, I've also shared how the output looks with those additional device ids added to the device name. Have a look at it when you get time. -Sibi >