Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Jan 2020 11:00:07 +0000 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of transport type |
| |
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 02:09:27PM -0600, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 3:32 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. > > > 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
| |