Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Support 'reg-io-width' property for shared memory

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 09:45:25AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 10/24/24 04:05, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > Gentle ping! Not sure if my earlier email got into spam or didn't land
> > in lore/ML. Just thought of checking again.
>
> You did not land in spam, just being quite busy.
>

Ah good, at times our email server acts up, so there is always some
doubt about it 😄.

> >
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 01:57:09PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:24:50AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > > > Some shared memory areas might only support a certain access width,
> > > > > such as 32-bit, which memcpy_{from,to}_io() does not adhere to at least
> > > > > on ARM64 by making both 8-bit and 64-bit accesses to such memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Update the shmem layer to support reading from and writing to such
> > > > > shared memory area using the specified I/O width in the Device Tree. The
> > > > > various transport layers making use of the shmem.c code are updated
> > > > > accordingly to pass the I/O accessors that they store.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This looks good to me now, much simpler. I will push this to -next soon,
> > > > but it won't be for v6.12. I have already sent PR for that. I want this
> > > > to be in -next for longer just to see if anyone has any comments and
> > > > doesn't break any platform(which it shouldn't anyways).
> > > >
> > > > Just hoping if anyone looks at it and have feedback once it is in -next.
> > > > I will apply formally at v6.12-rc1 and report back if no one complains
> > > > until then.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Florian,
> > >
> > > Just thought I will check with you if the content is -next are fine as I now
> > > recall I did the rebase as this patch was original posted before the rework
> > > of transport as modules were merged. Please confirm if you are happy with the
> > > rebase as you see in -next. I also had to rebase it on recent fixes that
> > > Justin added as there were trivial conflicts.
> > >
> > > Another thing I wanted to check is if [1] series has any impact on this.
> > > IIUC no, but it would be good to give a go in terms of testing just in case
> > > that as well lands in -next.
>
> linux-next as of today (2024-10-24) still works good on the affected
> platform, thanks for asking!

Thanks, though note that I am not sure if the series [1] I mentioned in queued
yet or not.

--
Regards,
Sudeep

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241010123627.695191-1-jvetter@kalrayinc.com