| Message ID | 20241007060642.1978049-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: arm_scmi: Misc Fixes | expand |
On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 08:07, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com> wrote: > > The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are > are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ > [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ > > The following warnings remain unadressed: > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > Duplicate levels: > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 2976000 Power 218062 Latency 30us Ifreq 2976000 Index 10 > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3206400 Power 264356 Latency 30us Ifreq 3206400 Index 11 > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 3417600 Power 314966 Latency 30us Ifreq 3417600 Index 12 > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Level 4012800 Power 528848 Latency 30us Ifreq 4012800 Index 15 > > ^^ exist because SCP reports duplicate values for the highest sustainable > freq for perf domains 1 and 2. These are the only freqs that appear as > duplicates and will be fixed with a firmware update. FWIW the warnings > that we are addressing in this series will also get fixed by a firmware > update but they still have to land for devices already out in the wild. > > V2: > * Include the fix for do_xfer timeout > * Include the fix debugfs node creation failure > * Include Cristian's fix for skipping opp duplication > > V1: > * add missing MSG_SUPPORTS_FASTCHANNEL definition. > > Base branch: next-20241004 > > Cristian Marussi (1): > firmware: arm_scmi: Skip adding bad duplicates > > Sibi Sankar (3): > firmware: arm_scmi: Ensure that the message-id supports fastchannel > pmdomain: core: Fix debugfs node creation failure > mailbox: qcom-cpucp: Mark the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag > Is there a preferred way to merge this? I can certainly pick the pmdomain patch, as it looks independent for the other. Or let me know if you prefer that I take them all? Kind regards Uffe
On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are > are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ > [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ > > The following warnings remain unadressed: > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 Are there any plans for how to address these? Johan
On 10/10/24 20:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: >> The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are >> are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. >> >> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ >> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ >> >> The following warnings remain unadressed: >> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 >> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > Are there any plans for how to address these? Hey Johan, Sorry missed replying to this. The error implies that duplicate opps are reported by the SCP firmware and appear once during probe. This particular error can be fixed only by a firmware update and you should be able to test it out soon on the CRD first. "FWIW the warnings that we are addressing in this series will also get fixed by a firmware update but they still have to land for devices already out in the wild." > > Johan
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:16:47PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > On 10/10/24 20:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > >> The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are > >> are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. > >> > >> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ > >> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ > >> > >> The following warnings remain unadressed: > >> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > > Are there any plans for how to address these? > Sorry missed replying to this. The error implies that duplicate > opps are reported by the SCP firmware and appear once during probe. I only see it at boot, but it shows up four times here with the CRD: [ 8.098452] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 [ 8.109647] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 [ 8.128970] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 [ 8.142455] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > This particular error can be fixed only by a firmware update and you > should be able to test it out soon on the CRD first. Can you explain why this can only be fixed by a firmware update? Why can't we suppress these warnings as well, like we did for the other warnings related to the duplicate entries? IIUC the firmware is not really broken, but rather describes a feature that Linux does not (yet) support, right? Johan
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 11:38:36AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > > On 10/23/24 21:56, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:16:47PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > > On 10/10/24 20:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > > > > The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are > > > > > are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ > > > > > [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ > > > > > > > > > > The following warnings remain unadressed: > > > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > > > > > > Are there any plans for how to address these? > > > > > Sorry missed replying to this. The error implies that duplicate > > > opps are reported by the SCP firmware and appear once during probe. > > > > I only see it at boot, but it shows up four times here with the CRD: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d54f6851-d479-a136-f747-4c0180904a5e@quicinc.com/ > > As explained ^^, we see duplicates for max sustainable performance twice > for each domain. If existing products were shipped with the firmware that lists single freq twice, please filter the frequencies like qcom-cpufreq-hw does. > > > > > [ 8.098452] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > [ 8.109647] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > [ 8.128970] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > [ 8.142455] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > > > This particular error can be fixed only by a firmware update and you > > > should be able to test it out soon on the CRD first. > > > > Can you explain why this can only be fixed by a firmware update? Why > > can't we suppress these warnings as well, like we did for the other > > warnings related to the duplicate entries? > > > > IIUC the firmware is not really broken, but rather describes a feature > > that Linux does not (yet) support, right? > > We keep saying it's a buggy firmware because the SCP firmware reports > identical perf and power levels for the additional two opps and the > kernel has no way of treating it otherwise and we shouldn't suppress > them. Out of the two duplicate opps reported one is a artifact from how > Qualcomm usually show a transition to boost frequencies. The second opp > which you say is a feature should be treated as a boost opp i.e. one > core can run at max at a lower power when other cores are at idle but > we can start marking them as such once they start advertising their > correct power requirements. So I maintain that this is the best we > can do and need a firmware update for us to address anything more. Will existing shipping products get these firmware updates?
On 10/25/24 11:44, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 11:38:36AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: >> >> >> On 10/23/24 21:56, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:16:47PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: >>>> On 10/10/24 20:32, Johan Hovold wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: >>>>>> The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are >>>>>> are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ >>>>>> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The following warnings remain unadressed: >>>>>> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 >>>>>> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 >>>>> >>>>> Are there any plans for how to address these? >>> >>>> Sorry missed replying to this. The error implies that duplicate >>>> opps are reported by the SCP firmware and appear once during probe. >>> >>> I only see it at boot, but it shows up four times here with the CRD: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d54f6851-d479-a136-f747-4c0180904a5e@quicinc.com/ >> >> As explained ^^, we see duplicates for max sustainable performance twice >> for each domain. > > If existing products were shipped with the firmware that lists single > freq twice, please filter the frequencies like qcom-cpufreq-hw does. That was a qualcomm specific driver and hence we could do such kind of filtering. This however is the generic scmi perf protocol and it's not something we should ever consider introducing :/ > >> >>> >>> [ 8.098452] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 >>> [ 8.109647] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 >>> [ 8.128970] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 >>> [ 8.142455] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 >>> >>>> This particular error can be fixed only by a firmware update and you >>>> should be able to test it out soon on the CRD first. >>> >>> Can you explain why this can only be fixed by a firmware update? Why >>> can't we suppress these warnings as well, like we did for the other >>> warnings related to the duplicate entries? >>> >>> IIUC the firmware is not really broken, but rather describes a feature >>> that Linux does not (yet) support, right? >> >> We keep saying it's a buggy firmware because the SCP firmware reports >> identical perf and power levels for the additional two opps and the >> kernel has no way of treating it otherwise and we shouldn't suppress >> them. Out of the two duplicate opps reported one is a artifact from how >> Qualcomm usually show a transition to boost frequencies. The second opp >> which you say is a feature should be treated as a boost opp i.e. one >> core can run at max at a lower power when other cores are at idle but >> we can start marking them as such once they start advertising their >> correct power requirements. So I maintain that this is the best we >> can do and need a firmware update for us to address anything more. > > Will existing shipping products get these firmware updates? They are sure to trickle out but I guess it's upto the oem to decide if they do want to pick these up like some of the other firmware updates being tested only on CRD. Not sure why warnings duplicates should block cpufreq from landing for x1e but if that's what the community wants I can drop reposting this series! -Sibi >
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 09:46, Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/25/24 11:44, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 11:38:36AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 10/23/24 21:56, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:16:47PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > >>>> On 10/10/24 20:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > >>>>>> The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are > >>>>>> are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ > >>>>>> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The following warnings remain unadressed: > >>>>>> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>>>>> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>>>> > >>>>> Are there any plans for how to address these? > >>> > >>>> Sorry missed replying to this. The error implies that duplicate > >>>> opps are reported by the SCP firmware and appear once during probe. > >>> > >>> I only see it at boot, but it shows up four times here with the CRD: > >> > >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d54f6851-d479-a136-f747-4c0180904a5e@quicinc.com/ > >> > >> As explained ^^, we see duplicates for max sustainable performance twice > >> for each domain. > > > > If existing products were shipped with the firmware that lists single > > freq twice, please filter the frequencies like qcom-cpufreq-hw does. > > That was a qualcomm specific driver and hence we could do such > kind of filtering. This however is the generic scmi perf protocol > and it's not something we should ever consider introducing :/ This depends on the maintainer's discretion. > > > > >> > >>> > >>> [ 8.098452] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>> [ 8.109647] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>> [ 8.128970] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>> [ 8.142455] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>> > >>>> This particular error can be fixed only by a firmware update and you > >>>> should be able to test it out soon on the CRD first. > >>> > >>> Can you explain why this can only be fixed by a firmware update? Why > >>> can't we suppress these warnings as well, like we did for the other > >>> warnings related to the duplicate entries? > >>> > >>> IIUC the firmware is not really broken, but rather describes a feature > >>> that Linux does not (yet) support, right? > >> > >> We keep saying it's a buggy firmware because the SCP firmware reports > >> identical perf and power levels for the additional two opps and the > >> kernel has no way of treating it otherwise and we shouldn't suppress > >> them. Out of the two duplicate opps reported one is a artifact from how > >> Qualcomm usually show a transition to boost frequencies. The second opp > >> which you say is a feature should be treated as a boost opp i.e. one > >> core can run at max at a lower power when other cores are at idle but > >> we can start marking them as such once they start advertising their > >> correct power requirements. So I maintain that this is the best we > >> can do and need a firmware update for us to address anything more. > > > > Will existing shipping products get these firmware updates? > > They are sure to trickle out but I guess it's upto the oem > to decide if they do want to pick these up like some of the > other firmware updates being tested only on CRD. Not sure why > warnings duplicates should block cpufreq from landing for x1e > but if that's what the community wants I can drop reposting > this series! No, the community definitely wants to have cpufreq for X1E. But at the same time some reviewers prefer to have a warning-free boot if those warnings can't be really fixed. I don't have such a strict position, but I'd prefer to see those messages at dev_info or dev_dbg level. Also, can we please have some plan or idea if somebody is actually working with laptop vendors to get corresponding firmware updates onto their hardware?
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 11:38:36AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > On 10/23/24 21:56, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:16:47PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > >> On 10/10/24 20:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > >>> On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 11:36:38AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote: > >>>> The series addresses the kernel warnings reported by Johan at [1] and are > >>>> are required to X1E cpufreq device tree changes [2] to land. > >>>> > >>>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZoQjAWse2YxwyRJv@hovoldconsulting.com/ > >>>> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240612124056.39230-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/ > >>>> > >>>> The following warnings remain unadressed: > >>>> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>>> arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > >>> > >>> Are there any plans for how to address these? > >> This particular error can be fixed only by a firmware update and you > >> should be able to test it out soon on the CRD first. > > > > Can you explain why this can only be fixed by a firmware update? Why > > can't we suppress these warnings as well, like we did for the other > > warnings related to the duplicate entries? > > > > IIUC the firmware is not really broken, but rather describes a feature > > that Linux does not (yet) support, right? > > We keep saying it's a buggy firmware because the SCP firmware reports > identical perf and power levels for the additional two opps and the > kernel has no way of treating it otherwise and we shouldn't suppress > them. Out of the two duplicate opps reported one is a artifact from how > Qualcomm usually show a transition to boost frequencies. The second opp > which you say is a feature should be treated as a boost opp i.e. one > core can run at max at a lower power when other cores are at idle but > we can start marking them as such once they start advertising their > correct power requirements. So I maintain that this is the best we > can do and need a firmware update for us to address anything more. Fair enough, but if you end up respinning the series, please say something about this in the cover letter so that we know why those warnings are (rightly) left in place. Johan
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 03:32:53PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 11:29:05AM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > > > > >>> [ 8.098452] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > > >>> [ 8.109647] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > > >>> [ 8.128970] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > > >>> [ 8.142455] arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: Failed to add opps_by_lvl at 3417600 for NCC - ret:-16 > > > I think dev_info could be an option from the SCMI perspective (as per my > > other mail), the important thing in these regards is to NOT go > > completely silent against fw anomalies...to avoid the the risk of being > > silently ignored .... I'll see what Sudeep thinks about... > > I agree. > > But could the error handling be improved to look less scary for an end > user by saying something about duplicate entries being ignored instead > perhaps? > > Printing something at info level and with a FW_BUG ("[Firmware Bug]: ") > prefix as was done here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230414084619.31524-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org/ > > should make it clear that this is not something for end users to worry > (too much) about. Sure...and thanks for the suggestion....I will cook something up around this.... (I am probably too used to try to scary the FW guys that I forgot there are also innocent bystanders like final users :P) Thanks, Cristian