[PATCH 2/7] firmware: arm_scmi: imx: Support discovering buildinfo of MISC protocol

[Peng Fan]

Hi Sudeep,

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 04:21:40PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 02:03:45PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
>> MISC protocol supports discovering the System Manager(SM) build
>> information including build commit, build time and etc. Add the API
>> for user to retrieve the information from SM.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
>> ---
>>  .../firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c    | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/linux/scmi_imx_protocol.h                  | 12 ++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c
>> index a8915d3b4df518719d56bfff38922625ad9b70f6..1b24d070c6f4856b92f515fcdba5836fd6498ce6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/vendors/imx/imx-sm-misc.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>  enum scmi_imx_misc_protocol_cmd {
>>  	SCMI_IMX_MISC_CTRL_SET	= 0x3,
>>  	SCMI_IMX_MISC_CTRL_GET	= 0x4,
>> +	SCMI_IMX_MISC_DISCOVER_BUILDINFO = 0x6,
>
>I clearly missed to raise this point when the documentation for this command
>was added. Anyways I assume, you had explored all the options before adding
>this as generic tools may not be able to pick this up. Instead, I would have
>just stuck with vendor version in the standard protocol with build number
>embedded into it. The date and other info must be implicit from the build.
>
>I try to be more cautious and ask questions in the future as I don't want
>vendor extensions to be dumping ground for really random things like this.

+Souvik

And Loop our firmware owner to help comment. I just add what the firmware
supports here and allow linux to see the information when the firmware
does not have uart output in some builds.

>From SCMI spec, it does not restrict what vendor extensions should be like
as I know. So I am not sure what we should do when we define vendor
extensions and what I should do next for this patch.

Please suggest.

Thanks,
Peng

>
>-- 
>Regards,
>Sudeep