From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932806AbcFTPJN (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:09:13 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33596 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752130AbcFTPJH (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:09:07 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants To: Neil Armstrong References: <1464255491-18503-1-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <57472450.4000709@arm.com> <574802AF.2080909@baylibre.com> <574BFA13.40009@baylibre.com> <5755AE78.4030104@arm.com> <5767C492.60201@baylibre.com> Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <57680537.1080009@arm.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:01:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5767C492.60201@baylibre.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 20/06/16 11:25, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 06/06/2016 07:10 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] >> >> Though this initial version of SCPI is not published, I am sure it is >> almost same as v1.0 except that the CMD is not part of payload like >> v1.0. In v1.0 it's part of payload and the mailbox is used just for >> doorbell mechanism. > I hoped it would be this simple, but it touches core defines and structure > that will over complicate the current driver. (i.e. the CMD indexes that differs, > the CMD size shift, the high and low priority redirection or struct ordering) > Ah ok, understood. >> IMO, we can add some compatible to indicate the pre v1.0 protocol >> and add the support to the existing driver itself. Let me know your >> thoughts. >> > > My proposal is : > - add a registry layer but with only a single scpi instance (no mode OF involved, remove drivers changes) > - add a scpi_legacy.c driver that only supports the old SCPI like Amlogic and Rockchip, and add a disclaimer for new developed SoCs > - add your extension capability to handle Amlogic's and Rockchip's extended commands > > If you agree, I'll post a new patchset for review with these changes. > Yes that sounds better. Also post along with the users to make it easy to review even if they are not completely ready for upstream. -- Regards, Sudeep