Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] Documentation: devicetree: add bindings to support ARM MHU doorbells | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:44:50 +0100 |
| |
On 06/07/17 15:37, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> I said it *may not be used*, currently it is used. >> > SCPI provides more than what SCMI currently does - dvfs, clock, sensor.
Not sure what you mean by that, but that's not true.
> I see no reason why you must have SCPI and SCMI both running. >
We can still have 2 different protocols using same MHU channel with different doorbells, what's wrong with that ?
> And even then there is a solution - a shim arbitrator. Other > platforms, those share a channel, do that. No big deal. >
Example please ? Please remember these protocols are generic and we can't add any platform specific code into them.
> BTW, I hope you realise that we need a 'transport layer' which will > be the platform specific glue between mailbox controller specifics and > the generic SCMI code.
Why ? Clearly you have not made a since technical argument so far as why MHU doorbell is not correct way even when MHU specification is clearly allows it. I have given example of ST mailbox which has this doorbell kind of support.
> I see your confusion in the form of some issues in the SCMI > implementation, please CC me on the next revision. >
Care to elaborate on what's my confusion or at-least what you think so ?
Also if you have concern on implementation, ok we can discuss further. But can you make it clear as what your objections are for the doorbell MHU binding. How will I get the bit assigned for different protocols which are platform specific ? I still need some binding , right ? -- Regards, Sudeep
| |