All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	peter.hilber@opensynergy.com,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	cristian.marussi@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the transport type
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:38:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200121183818.GA11522@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0fWf-wd8exJa+_UL9n0bQ26W6wd0iQH32osM1Q+cLu_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:11:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:27 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 on 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>
> > ---
> > @Sudeep: Can you please help me getting this tested?
> >

Sure(I may need to rebase on top of -next to test on top of what's queued
for v5.6)

> > V2->V3:
> > - Added more ops to the structure to read/write/memcpy data
> > - Payload is moved to mailbox.c and is handled in transport specific way
> >   now. This resulted in lots of changes.
>
> This addresses the comments I had about the implementation.
>

Thanks for review and all the suggestions Arnd.

> It's still hard for me to judge whether this is a good abstraction as
> long as there is only one backend in the framework, but I see nothing
> immediately wrong with it either.
>

Peter and Peng(both in cc) is trying out virtio and smc/hvc based transport
respectively. Hopefully they will raise concerns(if any) with the abstraction.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
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: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	cristian.marussi@arm.com, Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
	peter.hilber@opensynergy.com,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the transport type
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:38:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200121183818.GA11522@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0fWf-wd8exJa+_UL9n0bQ26W6wd0iQH32osM1Q+cLu_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:11:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:27 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 on 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>
> > ---
> > @Sudeep: Can you please help me getting this tested?
> >

Sure(I may need to rebase on top of -next to test on top of what's queued
for v5.6)

> > V2->V3:
> > - Added more ops to the structure to read/write/memcpy data
> > - Payload is moved to mailbox.c and is handled in transport specific way
> >   now. This resulted in lots of changes.
>
> This addresses the comments I had about the implementation.
>

Thanks for review and all the suggestions Arnd.

> It's still hard for me to judge whether this is a good abstraction as
> long as there is only one backend in the framework, but I see nothing
> immediately wrong with it either.
>

Peter and Peng(both in cc) is trying out virtio and smc/hvc based transport
respectively. Hopefully they will raise concerns(if any) with the abstraction.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-21 18:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-21  8:27 [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the transport type Viresh Kumar
2020-01-21  8:27 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-21 15:11 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-21 15:11   ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-01-21 18:38   ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2020-01-21 18:38     ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-22  2:36     ` [PATCH V4] " Viresh Kumar
2020-01-22  2:36       ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-22 12:15       ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-22 12:15         ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-23 10:30         ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-23 10:30           ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-23 11:27           ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-23 11:27             ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-23 11:37             ` Cristian Marussi
2020-01-23 11:37               ` Cristian Marussi
2020-01-23 15:17             ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-23 15:17               ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-24  3:02           ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-24  3:02             ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-24 11:22             ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-24 11:22               ` Sudeep Holla
2020-01-24 12:15       ` Peter Hilber
2020-01-24 12:15         ` Peter Hilber
2020-01-24 18:28         ` Jassi Brar
2020-01-24 18:28           ` Jassi Brar
2020-01-22 12:44 ` [PATCH V3] " Cristian Marussi
2020-01-22 12:44   ` Cristian Marussi
2020-01-23  2:39   ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-23  2:39     ` Viresh Kumar
2020-01-23 11:06     ` Cristian Marussi
2020-01-23 11:06       ` Cristian Marussi

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=20200121183818.GA11522@bogus \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=cristian.marussi@arm.com \
    --cc=jassisinghbrar@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peng.fan@nxp.com \
    --cc=peter.hilber@opensynergy.com \
    --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.