From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Introducing a generic AMP/IPC framework Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:46:35 +0200 Message-ID: <201106232046.35846.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1308640714-17961-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <4E033041.9090606@criticallink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: "Grosen, Mark" , Michael Williamson , Ohad Ben-Cohen , davinci-linux-open-source , Brian Swetland , Rusty Russell , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Grant Likely , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Subhasish Ghosh List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 23 June 2011 18:27:10 Grosen, Mark wrote: > First, we are not abandoning DSPLINK. We have many users of this, even > though it is out-of-tree, and we will continue to support it. That said, we > do intend to make this new design the basis for DSPLINK-like > functionality. It's designed to be done "the right way" for Linux (and we > are looking for feedback to make it better). It is also designed to be more > scalable and extensible in userspace. With a solid kernel foundation, we can > provide lots of functionality in userspace, or users can implement their own > custom solutions. One of the key things to do is map our existing DSPLINK > APIs, like MessageQ, to the new rpmsg transport. Sounds all good. What about the PRUSS code? Does that fit into the new model as well? Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:46:35 +0200 Subject: [RFC 0/8] Introducing a generic AMP/IPC framework In-Reply-To: References: <1308640714-17961-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <4E033041.9090606@criticallink.com> Message-ID: <201106232046.35846.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 23 June 2011 18:27:10 Grosen, Mark wrote: > First, we are not abandoning DSPLINK. We have many users of this, even > though it is out-of-tree, and we will continue to support it. That said, we > do intend to make this new design the basis for DSPLINK-like > functionality. It's designed to be done "the right way" for Linux (and we > are looking for feedback to make it better). It is also designed to be more > scalable and extensible in userspace. With a solid kernel foundation, we can > provide lots of functionality in userspace, or users can implement their own > custom solutions. One of the key things to do is map our existing DSPLINK > APIs, like MessageQ, to the new rpmsg transport. Sounds all good. What about the PRUSS code? Does that fit into the new model as well? Arnd