mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:01:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57680537.1080009@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5767C492.60201@baylibre.com>



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

      reply	other threads:[~2016-06-20 15:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-26  9:38 Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26  9:38 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] firmware: Add a SCPI framework to handle multiple vendors implementation Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26  9:38 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] firmware: scpi: Switch scpi drivers to use new Framework calls Neil Armstrong
2016-05-26 16:29 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants Sudeep Holla
2016-05-27  8:17   ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-27 15:17     ` Neil Armstrong
2016-05-30  8:30     ` Neil Armstrong
2016-06-01 10:10       ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-01 16:30         ` Kevin Hilman
2016-06-01 16:34           ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-01 18:48           ` Heiko Stübner
2016-06-06 17:10       ` Sudeep Holla
2016-06-20 10:25         ` Neil Armstrong
2016-06-20 15:01           ` Sudeep Holla [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=57680537.1080009@arm.com \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=narmstrong@baylibre.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome