[PATCH v2 08/13] firmware: arm_scmi: Harden clock protocol initialization

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Cristian,

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 at 17:35, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 at 17:14, Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 04:50:17PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Then I came up with the following preliminary (have to check more
> > > firmware versions) quirk (Gmail whitespace-damaged):
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c
> > > b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c
> > > index f62f9492bd42afbc..6f2af6e9084836c6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c
> > > @@ -1230,6 +1230,18 @@ static const struct scmi_protocol_events
> > > clk_protocol_events = {
> > >         .num_events = ARRAY_SIZE(clk_events),
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +#define QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES                                   \
> > > +       ({                                                              \
> > > +               if (ret == -EREMOTEIO || ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)            \
> > > +                       continue;                                       \
> > > +       })
> > > +
> > > +#define QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_RATES
> > >          \
> > > +       ({                                                              \
> > > +               if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)                                 \
> > > +                       ret = 0;                                        \
> > > +       })
> > > +
> > >  static int scmi_clock_protocol_init(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph)
> > >  {
> > >         int clkid, ret;
> > > @@ -1254,10 +1266,12 @@ static int scmi_clock_protocol_init(const
> > > struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph)
> > >         for (clkid = 0; clkid < cinfo->num_clocks; clkid++) {
> > >                 cinfo->clkds[clkid].id = clkid;
> > >                 ret = scmi_clock_attributes_get(ph, clkid, cinfo);
> > > +               SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes,
> > > QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES);
> > >                 if (ret)
> > >                         return ret;
> > >
> > >                 ret = scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(ph, clkid, cinfo);
> > > +               SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes,
> > > QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_RATES);
> > >                 if (ret)
> > >                         return ret;
> > >         }
>
> > > Does that look like what you have in mind?
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Yes in quirk I was only addressing NOT_ATTRIBUTES and mimicing the old
> > behaviour with continue, BUT if the set of clocks not supporting attributes
> > and the set of clocks not suppporting rates is disjoint, I feel we need your
> > double quirks :P
>
> I could have used
>
>     SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes, QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES);
>
> after both scmi_clock_attributes_get() and
> scmi_clock_describe_rates_get(), but I wanted to keep the check as
> strict as possible: the former returns two error codes to ignore,
> the latter only one.

So these are two mitigations:

    #define QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES    ({ ... })
    SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes, QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_ATTRIBUTES);

and

    #define QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_RATES         ({ ... })
    SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes, QUIRK_RCAR_X5H_NO_RATES);

gated by a single quirk entry clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes:

    DECLARE_SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes);
    DEFINE_SCMI_QUIRK(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes, "Renesas", NULL,
                      "0x10a0000", "renesas,r8a78000");
    __DECLARE_SCMI_QUIRK_ENTRY(clock_rcar_x5h_no_attributes),

In general, when a specific SCMI implementation has multiple quirks
and needs multiple mitigations, do you prefer to have individual
entries for each quirk plus mitigation, or just a single entry with
multiple mitigations (which may not be limited to a single protocol,
unlike my example above)?

Thanks!


Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds