Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:38:18 +0000 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the transport type |
| |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:11:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:27 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 on 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> > > --- > > @Sudeep: Can you please help me getting this tested? > >
Sure(I may need to rebase on top of -next to test on top of what's queued for v5.6)
> > V2->V3: > > - Added more ops to the structure to read/write/memcpy data > > - Payload is moved to mailbox.c and is handled in transport specific way > > now. This resulted in lots of changes. > > This addresses the comments I had about the implementation. >
Thanks for review and all the suggestions Arnd.
> It's still hard for me to judge whether this is a good abstraction as > long as there is only one backend in the framework, but I see nothing > immediately wrong with it either. >
Peter and Peng(both in cc) is trying out virtio and smc/hvc based transport respectively. Hopefully they will raise concerns(if any) with the abstraction.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |