Re: [alsa-devel] [v4,00/14] ASoC: Sound Open Firmware (SOF) core - Pierre-Louis Bossart

From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Arnaud Pouliquen <arnaud.pouliquen@st.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	xiang xiao <xiaoxiang781216@gmail.com>,
	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@gmail.com>,
	Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@linaro.org>,
	"andriy.shevchenko@intel.com" <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>,
	"alsa-devel@alsa-project.org" <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
	"tiwai@suse.de" <tiwai@suse.de>,
	"linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	"liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com"
	<liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com>,
	Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang@xiaomi.com>,
	"sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org"
	<sound-open-firmware@alsa-project.org>,
	"wendy.liang@xilinx.com" <wendy.liang@xilinx.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [v4,00/14] ASoC: Sound Open Firmware (SOF) core
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:49:16 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e4bef996-db81-afd3-7f32-97e89a3f4319@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190221112824.GC5970@sirena.org.uk>


>> Just for information... ST Microelectronics plans to port SOF to at
>> least one of its platforms (based on ARM cores). Today, for the
>> co-processor  management we use the rpmsg and remoteproc frameworks on
>> the Linux kernel side and OpenAMP on the remote processor side. We are
>> therefore interested in xiang's work.
>> An advantage we see in this generic solution is that compatibility
>> between the Linux kernel frameworks and the OpenAMP library is ensured
>> through discussions in the Linux and OpenAMP communities, involving
>> maintainers and several vendors.
Thanks Arnaud for sharing this information. You made my day.ï¿½ We've had 
to deal with a number of hurdles related to platform and tools 
availability, so it's good news indeed if there are more platforms 
endorsing SOF.
> This is a very good point, especially with people actually jumping on it
> if we can avoid having multiple ABIs to worry about that would make life
> a lot easier.  We should at least figure out if it will be disruptive to
> adapt it later on, even if Intel ends up continuing to use a custom
> system integration.
Yes indeed. At a high level we only have very generic send/receive IPC 
messages, and it really shouldn't matter how the transport happens.
However the actual contents/semantics of the messages do matter, and 
I'll have to run a check to make sure it scales.