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