[PATCH/RFC 05/14] firmware: arm_scmi: Add scmi_get_base_info()

Thu May 21 01:27:32 PDT 2026

On Thu, 21 May 2026 at 09:53, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2026 at 22:42, Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 12:26:19PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 01:03, Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 02:08:55PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 at 20:45, Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Also because this should be one of the selling point of the SCMI stack
> > > > > > in a virtualized environment: you can ship the same kernel drivers with
> > > > > > the same DT and you know that ID=<N> will always identify the specific
> > > > > > resource that is needed by your driver without worrying about the fact
> > > > > > that in reality in the backstage the effectively managed physical resource
> > > > > > could be different across different platforms, because that does not matter
> > > > >
> > > > > This sounds strange to me, do I understand it correctly?
> > > > > So the ID should (1) be tied to the use-case, and not to the underlying
> > > > > hardware, and (2) be the same for different platforms?
> > > > >
> > > > > For (1): Then we must not put these IDs in DT at all, as DT is supposed
> > > > >     to describe the hardware (and firmware IDs in DT were IMHO already
> > > > >     a stretch before).
> > > > > For (2): How can there be a contiguous list of IDs, as not all platforms
> > > > >     may have the same underlying hardware?
> > > >
> > > > I would NOT say that an SCMI FW must behave like this regarding IDs, but it
> > > > is a possible SCMI deployed setup that can be useful in virtualized setups
> > > >
> > > > I mean, the DT describes the hardware of course BUT when you refer to
> > > > some of this hardware DT bits from some other subsystem by referencing a
> > > > phandle, even in the non-SCMI world, you are in fact selecting a specific
> > > > resource that fit you use case, right ? Can we say this ?
> > > > I mean you needed that specific clock or regulator that you described
> > > > previously so as to be able to enable some other piece of HW...
> > > >
> > > > Now, the SCMI provides an abstraction on top of this, since you really
> > > > discover domain IDs of a specific class (clocks/regulators etc) you are
> > > > in fact describing an HW abstraction that you then refer with the usual
> > > > phandle...also because there is NOT so much SCMI hardware to describe,
> > > > given that the HW is handled transparently (opaquely really :P) by the
> > > > driver on the FW side...
> > > >
> > > > ...you basically obtain such domain ID, usable as phandles through dynamic
> > > > SCMI enumeration so that you can use it all over your DT to make use of such
> > > > resources...
> > > >
> > > > ...on top of this, consider that the SCMI server CAN provide to its agents
> > > > a per-agent-view of the world, IOW it can (and should) expose to a specific
> > > > agent ONLY the resources needed by that agent, i.e. it can expose the set
> > > > of resources 1-N to two distinct agents and that does NOT mean that the
> > > > underlying physical resource mapped by ID=3 in both agents has to be
> > > > effectively the same piece of hardware: it could be the case, and this
> > > > would be useful to exposed and managed properly a shared resource, or
> > > > it could also be that the same ID=3 could refer to completely distinct
> > > > pieces of the same class of hardware...(same protocol same class of
> > > > resource...)
> > >
> > > Exposing only the clocks/reset/power domains the agent can use,
> > > in a contiguous list of IDS, means that the number space changes,
> > > depending on which resources are exposed.
> >
> > Yes, potentially, it depedns on how the HW/FW stack was designed I
> > suppose...
> >
> > > Suppose you have a system where you want to assign a specific hardware
> > > block in the SoC to the realtime CPU core instead of the application
> > > CPU core running Linux.
> >
> > Ok, so this is definitely a considerable change.
> >
> > > That means all resources used by that block must no longer be exposed
> > > to the Linux agent, and the corresponding IDs must be removed from
> > > the ID space exposed to Linux.  As the ID space must be sequential
> > > and contiguous, the IDs must be renumbered, impacting resources that
> > > are exposed to Linux.  As these IDs are used in the SoC .dtsi, they
> > > must be changed there, too, However, these IDs have become part of
> > > the stable DT ABI, and thus cannot be changed.
> >
> > Well, you have to ship a final DTB blob that is crafted to describe the
> > actual HW at the end, right ?
> >
> > I mean, in your example, it seems to me that you have changed considerably
> > the HW surface by moving a clock (and its related resources) away from the
> > reach of Linux as a whole, so should not be expected to have an updated
> > DTB shipped ?
>
> It is not necessary to ship an updated DTB.
> The bootloader stack can just change the "status" properties of devices
> nodes that are be taken away from Linux from "okay" to "reserved":
>
> Devicetree Specification, Release v0.4, Table 2.4: Values for statu
> property states:
>
>     Value: "reserved"
>     Description:
>         Indicates that the device is operational, but should not be
>         used. Typically this is used for devices that are controlled
>         by another software component, such as platform firmware.
>
> When all SCMI IDs change, too, much more work needs to be done.

It's a pity we cannot use strings in e.g. clock specifiers.
Then we could look them up by name (which would hopefully be more
stable) instead of by ID...

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