From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/5] firmware: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol driver Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:31:03 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160906190127.23522-1-nm@ti.com> <7hshtbtu8l.fsf@baylibre.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Nishanth Menon's message of "Thu, 8 Sep 2016 09:00:37 -0500") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon Cc: Rob Herring , Tero Kristo , Santosh Shilimkar , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Dave Gerlach , Lokesh Vutla , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew F . Davis" , Russell King , Russ Dill , Sudeep Holla , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, narmstrong@baylibre.com, Charles Garcia-Tobin , David Griego List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Nishanth Menon writes: > On 09/07/2016 01:55 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Nishanth Menon writes: > > [...] full mail thread in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747 > >>> Overall architecture is very similar to SCPI[4] as follows: >> >> Dumb Q: I'm curious about the limitations in SCPI that were found that >> made TI decided to implement its own version. [...] > Long story short, investigation was done into what SCPI was providing > (TI internal ofcourse) and SCPI did not fit our SoC generation needs - Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very helpful. To be clear, I'm not a proponent of always using ARM "standards" (especially when it's not exactly clear if it's a standard or a Juno thing) but I'm seeing several SoCs come out with SCPI derivatives, or old ARM versions etc., so was just curious about the decision making process. Thanks for sharing, Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@baylibre.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:31:03 -0700 Subject: [PATCH V3 0/5] firmware: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol driver In-Reply-To: (Nishanth Menon's message of "Thu, 8 Sep 2016 09:00:37 -0500") References: <20160906190127.23522-1-nm@ti.com> <7hshtbtu8l.fsf@baylibre.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Nishanth Menon writes: > On 09/07/2016 01:55 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Nishanth Menon writes: > > [...] full mail thread in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747 > >>> Overall architecture is very similar to SCPI[4] as follows: >> >> Dumb Q: I'm curious about the limitations in SCPI that were found that >> made TI decided to implement its own version. [...] > Long story short, investigation was done into what SCPI was providing > (TI internal ofcourse) and SCPI did not fit our SoC generation needs - Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very helpful. To be clear, I'm not a proponent of always using ARM "standards" (especially when it's not exactly clear if it's a standard or a Juno thing) but I'm seeing several SoCs come out with SCPI derivatives, or old ARM versions etc., so was just curious about the decision making process. Thanks for sharing, Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753259AbcIHRbO (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:31:14 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com ([209.85.218.42]:34868 "EHLO mail-oi0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753151AbcIHRbI (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:31:08 -0400 From: Kevin Hilman To: Nishanth Menon Cc: Rob Herring , Tero Kristo , Santosh Shilimkar , , Dave Gerlach , Lokesh Vutla , , , "Andrew F . Davis" , Russell King , Russ Dill , Sudeep Holla , , , Charles Garcia-Tobin , David Griego Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/5] firmware: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol driver Organization: BayLibre References: <20160906190127.23522-1-nm@ti.com> <7hshtbtu8l.fsf@baylibre.com> Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:31:03 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Nishanth Menon's message of "Thu, 8 Sep 2016 09:00:37 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nishanth Menon writes: > On 09/07/2016 01:55 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Nishanth Menon writes: > > [...] full mail thread in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747 > >>> Overall architecture is very similar to SCPI[4] as follows: >> >> Dumb Q: I'm curious about the limitations in SCPI that were found that >> made TI decided to implement its own version. [...] > Long story short, investigation was done into what SCPI was providing > (TI internal ofcourse) and SCPI did not fit our SoC generation needs - Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very helpful. To be clear, I'm not a proponent of always using ARM "standards" (especially when it's not exactly clear if it's a standard or a Juno thing) but I'm seeing several SoCs come out with SCPI derivatives, or old ARM versions etc., so was just curious about the decision making process. Thanks for sharing, Kevin