RE: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type

From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 06:45:34 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB448197C42958AE684D021FE288350@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200110122725.GB45077@bogus>

Hi Sudeep,

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
> transport type
> 
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 03:04:42PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 09-01-20, 09:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 10:32 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> 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.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > >
> > > Conceptually I think this is fine, but as others have said, it would
> > > be better to have another transport implementation posted along with
> > > this to see if the interfaces actually work out.
> >
> > @Sudeep/Vincent: Do you think we can add another transport
> > implementation something right away for it ?
> >
> 
> Even if we don't add new transport right away, I would like to see if the
> requirements are met. I will take a look at you v2 with that in mind anyways.
> We need not wait, we I want to see people think it meets their requirement. I
> will also add couple of guys working on virtio transport for SCMI when I
> respond to your v2. Thanks for posting it.
> 
> > @Peng ?
> >
> Peng, Did you get a chance to try this with SMC ? If SCMI was the only
> usecase, you can try this approach instead of mailbox, now that no one has
> any objects to this approach conceptually. Please use v2 as base and update
> us.

I will try that, but might be a bit later.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep