Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scpi: Add hardware dependencies | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:20:53 +0000 |
| |
On 25/01/17 14:14, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:56:23 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 25/01/17 13:50, Jean Delvare wrote: >>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:38:47 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>> On 25/01/17 13:32, Jean Delvare wrote: >>>>> With a name like that, I assume that the ARM SCPI protocol is only >>>>> useful on the ARM architectures. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> >>>>> Fixes: 8f1498c03d15 ("firmware: arm_scpi: make it depend on MAILBOX instead of") >>>>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>>>> Cc: Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong. >>>> >>>> I won't say you are wrong but the reason why it's named arm_scpi is >>>> because the protocol was developed by ARM. It doesnn't mean only >>>> ARM/ARM64 needs to use it, it can be used on any architecture for >>>> inter-processor communication using any communication technique >>>> (currently mailbox is the only supported in the driver) >>> >>> OK, thanks for the clarification. In practice, what other architectures >>> are using it? >> >> None, hence I didn't say you are wrong ;). I am fine having the check if >> it breaks for any other architecture with COMPILE_TEST. > > Not sure what you mean here... The purpose of COMPILE_TEST is to allow > limiting the scope of a driver withing hurting the build test coverage. >
No I agree with adding COMPILE_TEST just not ARM || ARM64
>> Also you have mentioned it fixes 8f1498c03d15, have you seen any >> regression with that commit ? If so, details in the commit would be >> good. > > Before 8f1498c03d15, the dependency on ARM_MHU made the driver only > visible on ARM kernels. Since 8f1498c03d15, the driver is proposed to > all, which I think isn't correct.
I disagree here. It depends on mailbox as we use mailbox API. And it is now used on AmLogic Meson series of SoC. So it *is correct*.
> In that sense my proposed patch is > fixing a (user-friendliness) regression. But nothing serious. >
Can you elaborate ? What's that *user-friendliness regression* ? build/boot/... ? I just need more details.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |