From: Vivek Aknurwar <vivek.aknurwar@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: cristian.marussi@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, mike.tipton@oss.qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] firmware: arm_scmi: Increase MAX_OPPS to 64
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:19:53 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b904647e-050f-4283-a24d-71181480dc7a@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DEVGFVA8N0N9.13ZJADVNM9PHO@linaro.org>
On 12/11/2025 6:25 AM, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> On Thu Dec 11, 2025 at 2:07 PM GMT, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>>> Ah good point on confusing commit message. I just assumed it is limitation
>>>> of the implementation. I can update the log when applying. It is not spec
>>>> or protocol limitation for sure.
>>>>
>>>> How about this ?
>>>>
>>>> | firmware: arm_scmi: Increase performance MAX_OPPS limit to 64
>>>> |
>>>> | Some platforms expose more than 32 operating performance points (OPPs)
>>>> | per performance domain via the SCMI performance protocol, but the
>>>> | driver currently limits the number of OPPs it can handle to 32 via
>>>> | MAX_OPPS.
>>>> |
>>>> | Bump MAX_OPPS to 64 so that these platforms can register all their
>>>> | performance levels. This is an internal limit in the driver only and
>>>> | does not affect the SCMI protocol ABI.
>>>> |
>>>> | 64 is chosen as the next power of two above the existing limit.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that sounds better :)
>>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>> I also thought that this was a driver limitation, not the protocol/spec one
>>> as stated in the original patch.
>>>
>>> I don't mind updating the commit message like this (but I am not the author
>>> of the original patch).
>>>
>> Vivek, are you happy with the above edited commit message ?
Yes, I’m good with the suggested commit message. Thanks for clarifying!
Signed-off-by: Vivek Aknurwar <vivek.aknurwar@oss.qualcomm.com>
>
> FWIW, with updated commit message feel free to use:
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-15 22:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-14 7:34 Vivek Aknurwar
2025-10-14 7:51 ` Konrad Dybcio
2025-12-10 23:28 ` Vivek Aknurwar
2025-12-11 9:50 ` Sudeep Holla
2025-12-11 13:14 ` Alexey Klimov
2025-12-11 13:48 ` Sudeep Holla
2025-12-11 13:54 ` Alexey Klimov
2025-12-11 14:07 ` Sudeep Holla
2025-12-11 14:25 ` Alexey Klimov
2025-12-15 22:19 ` Vivek Aknurwar [this message]
2026-01-01 17:57 ` Sudeep Holla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b904647e-050f-4283-a24d-71181480dc7a@oss.qualcomm.com \
--to=vivek.aknurwar@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=alexey.klimov@linaro.org \
--cc=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mike.tipton@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®