From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:34:33 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants In-Reply-To: <7hy46oeusn.fsf@baylibre.com> References: <1464255491-18503-1-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <57472450.4000709@arm.com> <574802AF.2080909@baylibre.com> <574BFA13.40009@baylibre.com> <574EB4A5.9000805@arm.com> <7hy46oeusn.fsf@baylibre.com> Message-ID: <574F0E99.40409@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/06/16 17:30, Kevin Hilman wrote: > [ + Heiko, who may know about the Rockchip implementation ] > > Sudeep Holla 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 guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI 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