| Message ID | 20240320074213.1615888-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: arm_scmi: perf: print domain name in error path | expand |
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:42:13PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > It would be easier to locate the problem if domain name is printed out. > And including a coding style update. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 10 +++++----- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > index 345fff167b52..e98ca6d15b0c 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct scmi_msg_resp_perf_domain_attributes { > __le32 rate_limit_us; > __le32 sustained_freq_khz; > __le32 sustained_perf_level; > - u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE]; > + u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE]; Spurious change ? > }; > > struct scmi_msg_perf_describe_levels { > @@ -387,8 +387,8 @@ process_response_opp(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom, > > ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL); > if (ret) > - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n", > - opp->perf, ret); > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s- ret:%d\n", > + opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret); > } > > static inline void > @@ -405,8 +405,8 @@ process_response_opp_v4(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom, > > ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL); > if (ret) > - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n", > - opp->perf, ret); > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s - ret:%d\n", > + opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret); > Are you really hitting these issues ? Or is it just code observation/improvements ? It looks good otherwise. You can also add the below change when you respin.
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: perf: print domain name in error > path > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 03:42:13PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > > > It would be easier to locate the problem if domain name is printed out. > > And including a coding style update. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> > > --- > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > index 345fff167b52..e98ca6d15b0c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct scmi_msg_resp_perf_domain_attributes { > > __le32 rate_limit_us; > > __le32 sustained_freq_khz; > > __le32 sustained_perf_level; > > - u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE]; > > + u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE]; > > Spurious change ? I just think this is a coding style cleanup, I could drop it in v2. > > > }; > > > > struct scmi_msg_perf_describe_levels { @@ -387,8 +387,8 @@ > > process_response_opp(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom, > > > > ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL); > > if (ret) > > - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n", > > - opp->perf, ret); > > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s- > ret:%d\n", > > + opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret); > > } > > > > static inline void > > @@ -405,8 +405,8 @@ process_response_opp_v4(struct device *dev, > struct > > perf_dom_info *dom, > > > > ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL); > > if (ret) > > - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n", > > - opp->perf, ret); > > + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s - > ret:%d\n", > > + opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret); > > > > Are you really hitting these issues ? Yes. two levels had same freq on i.MX95, but we fixed. Or is it just code > observation/improvements ? > > It looks good otherwise. You can also add the below change when you respin. ok, will include in v2. Thanks, Peng. > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep > > diff --git i/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > w/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > index 211e8e0aef2c..ef1c27a65552 100644 > --- i/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > +++ w/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c > @@ -830,7 +830,8 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add(const struct > scmi_protocol_handle *ph, > > ret = dev_pm_opp_add_dynamic(dev, &data); > if (ret) { > - dev_warn(dev, "failed to add opp %luHz\n", freq); > + dev_warn(dev, "[%d][%s]: Failed to add OPP[%d] %lu\n", > + domain, dom->info.name, idx, freq); > dev_pm_opp_remove_all_dynamic(dev); > return ret; > }
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c index 345fff167b52..e98ca6d15b0c 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ struct scmi_msg_resp_perf_domain_attributes { __le32 rate_limit_us; __le32 sustained_freq_khz; __le32 sustained_perf_level; - u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE]; + u8 name[SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE]; }; struct scmi_msg_perf_describe_levels { @@ -387,8 +387,8 @@ process_response_opp(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom, ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL); if (ret) - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n", - opp->perf, ret); + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s- ret:%d\n", + opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret); } static inline void @@ -405,8 +405,8 @@ process_response_opp_v4(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom, ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL); if (ret) - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d - ret:%d\n", - opp->perf, ret); + dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s - ret:%d\n", + opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret); /* Note that PERF v4 reports always five 32-bit words */ opp->indicative_freq = le32_to_cpu(r->opp[loop_idx].indicative_freq);