All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <574F0E99.40409@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7hy46oeusn.fsf@baylibre.com>



On 01/06/16 17:30, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> [ + Heiko, who may know about the Rockchip implementation ]
>
> Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> writes:
>
>> On 30/05/16 09:30, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> On 05/27/2016 10:17 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>
>>> While looking for other ARMv8 based platform, I found that the RK3368
>>> platform has the same SCPI implementation as Amlogic.
>>>
>>> They extended it with DDR, system and thermal commands.
>>>
>>> Look at :
>>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_cmd.h
>>>
>>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_protocol.c
>>>
>>
>>
>>> So the SCPI must have a framework to allow different protocol
>>> versions, and must allow command extension. Grouping Rockchip and
>>> Amlogic should be done, thus needing a generic name like vendor_scpi
>>> or with a version.
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense. I understand the need to reuse and I need a bit of time to
>> have a look at the code(both Amlogic one's you have pointed out and the
>> Rockchip one) in detail to see what's the best way to proceed. I will
>> have a look at this later this week and get back to you.
>>
>>> Sudeep, could you somehow find out which version of the protocol
>>> AmLogic and Rockchip based their SCPI development ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes I tried checking with Rockchip but didn't get a response. But my
>> guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI
>> unfortunately :(
>
> And if one partner did that, probably everyone else did as well, but
> this being the ARM universe, they all did it slightly differently. :(
>

No doubt :)

> We know from experience, that this happens all the time in the absence
> of a clear standard, so this framework will need to be extended to be
> useful.
>

Completely agreed, better to gather all the information possible before
we proceed. I will try to check if I can get hold of old version
internally in the meantime.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
Cc: heiko@sntech.de, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <574F0E99.40409@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7hy46oeusn.fsf@baylibre.com>



On 01/06/16 17:30, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> [ + Heiko, who may know about the Rockchip implementation ]
>
> Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> writes:
>
>> On 30/05/16 09:30, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> On 05/27/2016 10:17 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>
>>> While looking for other ARMv8 based platform, I found that the RK3368
>>> platform has the same SCPI implementation as Amlogic.
>>>
>>> They extended it with DDR, system and thermal commands.
>>>
>>> Look at :
>>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_cmd.h
>>>
>>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_protocol.c
>>>
>>
>>
>>> So the SCPI must have a framework to allow different protocol
>>> versions, and must allow command extension. Grouping Rockchip and
>>> Amlogic should be done, thus needing a generic name like vendor_scpi
>>> or with a version.
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense. I understand the need to reuse and I need a bit of time to
>> have a look at the code(both Amlogic one's you have pointed out and the
>> Rockchip one) in detail to see what's the best way to proceed. I will
>> have a look at this later this week and get back to you.
>>
>>> Sudeep, could you somehow find out which version of the protocol
>>> AmLogic and Rockchip based their SCPI development ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes I tried checking with Rockchip but didn't get a response. But my
>> guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI
>> unfortunately :(
>
> And if one partner did that, probably everyone else did as well, but
> this being the ARM universe, they all did it slightly differently. :(
>

No doubt :)

> We know from experience, that this happens all the time in the absence
> of a clear standard, so this framework will need to be extended to be
> useful.
>

Completely agreed, better to gather all the information possible before
we proceed. I will try to check if I can get hold of old version
internally in the meantime.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-01 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-26  9:38 [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26  9:38 ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26  9:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] firmware: Add a SCPI framework to handle multiple vendors implementation Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26  9:38   ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26  9:38 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] firmware: scpi: Switch scpi drivers to use new Framework calls Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26  9:38   ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26 16:29 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants Sudeep Holla
2016-05-26 16:29   ` Sudeep Holla
2016-05-27  8:17   ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-27  8:17     ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-27 15:17     ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-27 15:17       ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-30  8:30     ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-30  8:30       ` Neil Armstrong
2016-06-01 10:10       ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-01 10:10         ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-01 16:30         ` Kevin Hilman
2016-06-01 16:30           ` Kevin Hilman
2016-06-01 16:34           ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2016-06-01 16:34             ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-01 18:48           ` Heiko Stübner
2016-06-01 18:48             ` Heiko Stübner
2016-06-06 17:10       ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-06 17:10         ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-20 10:25         ` Neil Armstrong
2016-06-20 10:25           ` Neil Armstrong
2016-06-20 15:01           ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-20 15:01             ` 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=574F0E99.40409@arm.com \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.