回复: [PATCH v6 10/20] scmi_protocols: update struct scmi_base_discover_list_protocols_out

[Alice Guo (OSS)]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
> 发送时间: 2025年3月1日 3:25
> 收件人: Alice Guo (OSS) <alice.guo at oss.nxp.com>; Tom Rini
> <trini at konsulko.com>; Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de>; Fabio Estevam
> <festevam at gmail.com>; dl-uboot-imx <uboot-imx at nxp.com>; Lukasz
> Majewski <lukma at denx.de>; Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>; Simon
> Glass <sjg at chromium.org>; Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak at gmail.com>;
> Alice Guo <alice.guo at nxp.com>
> 抄送: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Ye Li <ye.li at nxp.com>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH v6 10/20] scmi_protocols: update struct
> scmi_base_discover_list_protocols_out
> 
> On 2/28/25 11:54 AM, Alice Guo (OSS) wrote:
> > From: Ye Li <ye.li at nxp.com>
> >
> > @protocols is an array of protocol identifiers that are implemented,
> > excluding the Base protocol. The number of elements of @protocols is
> > specified by callee-side. Currently, set it to 4 is enough for i.MX95.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ye Li <ye.li at nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alice Guo <alice.guo at nxp.com>
> > ---
> >   include/scmi_protocols.h | 5 ++++-
> >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/scmi_protocols.h b/include/scmi_protocols.h index
> > 2684f4177d..7ce73ddfae 100644
> > --- a/include/scmi_protocols.h
> > +++ b/include/scmi_protocols.h
> > @@ -141,11 +141,14 @@ struct scmi_base_discover_impl_version_out {
> >    * @status:		SCMI command status
> >    * @num_protocols:	Number of SCMI protocols in @protocol
> >    * @protocols:		Array of packed SCMI protocol ID's
> > + *
> > + * The number of elements of @protocols is specified by callee-side.
> > + Currently,
> > + * set it to 4 is enough for i.MX95.
> >    */
> >   struct scmi_base_discover_list_protocols_out {
> >   	s32 status;
> >   	u32 num_protocols;
> > -	u32 protocols[3];
> > +	u32 protocols[4];
> 
> Can this be made dynamic ? I think I already asked about this last time, but v4
> feedback was not addressed, can you please double-check that v4 feedback ? I
> will review next version once it is addressed .

Sorry for not replying to your comments for v4. I have just replied in v4 and want to discuss this change with you.