Messages in this thread | | | From | Peng Fan <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2020 06:45:34 +0000 |
| |
Hi Sudeep,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of > transport type > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 03:04:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 09-01-20, 09:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:32 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > The SCMI specification is fairly independent of the transport > > > > protocol, which can be a simple mailbox (already implemented) or > anything else. > > > > The current Linux implementation however is very much dependent of > > > > the mailbox transport layer. > > > > > > > > This patch makes the SCMI core code (driver.c) independent of the > > > > mailbox transport layer and moves all mailbox related code to a > > > > new > > > > file: mailbox.c. > > > > > > > > We can now implement more transport protocols to transport SCMI > > > > messages. > > > > > > > > The transport protocols just need to provide struct > > > > scmi_transport_ops, with its version of the callbacks to enable exchange > of SCMI messages. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > > > Conceptually I think this is fine, but as others have said, it would > > > be better to have another transport implementation posted along with > > > this to see if the interfaces actually work out. > > > > @Sudeep/Vincent: Do you think we can add another transport > > implementation something right away for it ? > > > > Even if we don't add new transport right away, I would like to see if the > requirements are met. I will take a look at you v2 with that in mind anyways. > We need not wait, we I want to see people think it meets their requirement. I > will also add couple of guys working on virtio transport for SCMI when I > respond to your v2. Thanks for posting it. > > > @Peng ? > > > Peng, Did you get a chance to try this with SMC ? If SCMI was the only > usecase, you can try this approach instead of mailbox, now that no one has > any objects to this approach conceptually. Please use v2 as base and update > us.
I will try that, but might be a bit later.
Thanks, Peng.
> > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
| |