From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:00:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191203120002.GB4171@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c545c2866ba075ddb44907940a1dae1d823b8a1.1575019719.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 03:01:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar 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.
>
The implementation looks fine to me.
> We can now implement more transport protocols to transport SCMI
> messages.
>
I am more interested in this part. As I am aware the only 2 other
transport being discussed is SMC/HVC and new/yet conceptual SPCI(built
on top of SMC/HVC). There are already discussions on the list to make
former as mailbox[1]. While I see both pros and cons with that approach,
there's a need to converge. One main advantage I see with SMC/HVC mailbox
is that it can be used with any other client and not just SCMI. Equally,
the queuing in the mailbox may not be needed with fast SMC/HVC but may
be needed for new SPCI(not yet fully analysed).
> The transport protocols just need to provide struct scmi_transport_ops,
> with its version of the callbacks to enable exchange of SCMI messages.
>
As I mentioned I am fine with implementation in this patch. But I would
like to hear especially from Arnd and Jassi as the abstraction look more
like mailbox APIs themselves and may look like duplication. I don't
want people to realise late that this is not good idea for whatever
reasons. If we have valid and enough reasons to do so, we can take
this approach. I really need some feedback here.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1575281525-1549-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:00:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191203120002.GB4171@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c545c2866ba075ddb44907940a1dae1d823b8a1.1575019719.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 03:01:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar 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.
>
The implementation looks fine to me.
> We can now implement more transport protocols to transport SCMI
> messages.
>
I am more interested in this part. As I am aware the only 2 other
transport being discussed is SMC/HVC and new/yet conceptual SPCI(built
on top of SMC/HVC). There are already discussions on the list to make
former as mailbox[1]. While I see both pros and cons with that approach,
there's a need to converge. One main advantage I see with SMC/HVC mailbox
is that it can be used with any other client and not just SCMI. Equally,
the queuing in the mailbox may not be needed with fast SMC/HVC but may
be needed for new SPCI(not yet fully analysed).
> The transport protocols just need to provide struct scmi_transport_ops,
> with its version of the callbacks to enable exchange of SCMI messages.
>
As I mentioned I am fine with implementation in this patch. But I would
like to hear especially from Arnd and Jassi as the abstraction look more
like mailbox APIs themselves and may look like duplication. I don't
want people to realise late that this is not good idea for whatever
reasons. If we have valid and enough reasons to do so, we can take
this approach. I really need some feedback here.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1575281525-1549-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-03 12:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-29 9:31 [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type Viresh Kumar
2019-11-29 9:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-12-03 12:00 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2019-12-03 12:00 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-12-10 10:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-12-10 10:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-12-09 18:13 ` Cristian Marussi
2019-12-09 18:13 ` Cristian Marussi
2019-12-10 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-12-10 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-12-10 18:46 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-12-10 18:46 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-12-11 2:43 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-12-11 2:43 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-12-31 2:50 ` Peng Fan
2019-12-31 2:50 ` Peng Fan
2019-12-31 12:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-12-31 12:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2019-12-31 20:09 ` Jassi Brar
2019-12-31 20:09 ` Jassi Brar
2020-01-06 11:00 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-06 11:00 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-09 8:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-09 8:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-09 9:16 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-09 9:16 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-10 12:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-10 12:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-09 9:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-09 9:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-09 10:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-09 10:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-10 12:27 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-10 12:27 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-13 6:45 ` Peng Fan
2020-01-13 6:45 ` Peng Fan
2020-01-10 12:31 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-10 12:31 ` Sudeep Holla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191203120002.GB4171@bogus \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=jassisinghbrar@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.