From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51ED7C32771 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 11:00:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 280692072C for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 11:00:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726358AbgAFLAR (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2020 06:00:17 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:42862 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725787AbgAFLAQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jan 2020 06:00:16 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF869328; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 03:00:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC7843F534; Mon, 6 Jan 2020 03:00:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 11:00:07 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Jassi Brar Cc: Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Arnd Bergmann , Sudeep Holla , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arm-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type Message-ID: <20200106110007.GA54466@bogus> References: <5c545c2866ba075ddb44907940a1dae1d823b8a1.1575019719.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 02:09:27PM -0600, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 3:32 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > The SCMI specification is fairly independent of the transport protocol, > > which can be a simple mailbox (already implemented) or anything else. > > The current Linux implementation however is very much dependent of the > > mailbox transport layer. > > > > This patch makes the SCMI core code (driver.c) independent of the > > mailbox transport layer and moves all mailbox related code to a new > > file: mailbox.c. > > > > We can now implement more transport protocols to transport SCMI > > messages. > > > > The transport protocols just need to provide struct scmi_transport_ops, > > with its version of the callbacks to enable exchange of SCMI messages. > > > We can either add new transport layer between SCMI and Mailbox layers, > or we can write new transport as a mailbox driver (which I always > thought could be a usecase). Right now I am of no strong opinion > either way. Depends, what other transport do you have in mind? > To be more clear, this patch abstracts the SCMI transport so that mailbox can be one of the transport. The plan is to add SMC/HVC, SMC/HVC over SPCI, vitio based transport as alternative to mailbox. These are neither added as mailbox driver nor transport layer between SCMI and Mailbox. E.g.: we either use Peng's SMC based mailbox driver as is or add a new transport independent of mailbox framework here as SCMI transport. -- Regards, Sudeep