[PATCH V4 0/5] arm_scmi: vendors: Qualcomm Generic Vendor Extensions

[Sibi Sankar]

On 11/22/24 14:07, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:52:12AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>> On 11/8/24 20:44, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 01:55:33PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 
>>>>> Second, after loading the protocol and client drivers manually (in that
>>>>> order, shouldn't the client driver pull in the protocol?), I got:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	scmi_module: Loaded SCMI Vendor Protocol 0x80 - Qualcomm  20000
>>>>> 	arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: QCOM Generic Vendor Version 1.0
>>>>> 	scmi-qcom-generic-ext-memlat scmi_dev.5: error -EOPNOTSUPP: failed to configure common events
>>>>> 	scmi-qcom-generic-ext-memlat scmi_dev.5: probe with driver scmi-qcom-generic-ext-memlat failed with error -95
>>>>>
>>>>> which seems to suggest that the firmware on my CRD does not support this
>>>>> feature. Is that the way this should be interpreted? And does that mean
>>>>> that non of the commercial laptops supports this either?
> 
>>> Yeah, hopefully Sibi can shed some light on this. I'm using the DT
>>> patch (5/5) from this series, which according to the commit message is
>>> supposed to enable bus scaling on the x1e80100 platform. So I guess
>>> something is missing in my firmware.
>>
>> Nah, it's probably just because of the algo string used.
>> The past few series used caps MEMLAT string instead of
>> memlat to pass the tuneables, looks like all the laptops
>> havn't really switched to it yet. Will revert back to
>> using to lower case memlat so that all devices are
>> supported. Thanks for trying the series out!
> 
> I have a Lenovo ThinkPad T14s set up now so I gave this series a spin
> there too, and there I do *not* see the above mentioned -EOPNOSUPP error
> and the memlat driver probes successfully.
> 
> On the other hand, this series seems to have no effect on a kernel
> compilation benchmark. Is that expected?

I can have a look at your tree. But memlat in general
depends on the cpu frequency when your benchmarks max
the cpu's the ddr/llcc are scaled accordingly by it.

> 
> And does this mean that you should stick with the uppercase "MEMLAT"
> string after all? The firmware on my CRD is not the latest one, but I am
> using the latest available firmware for the T14s.

We should stick with "memlat" if we run into a device in the
wild that doesn't support "MEMLAT"

-Sibi

> 
> Johan
>