From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751807AbdHQJ6I (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 05:58:08 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47310 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751173AbdHQJ6G (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 05:58:06 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mailbox: arm: introduce smc triggered mailbox To: Alexander Graf , Jassi Brar , Sudeep Holla Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Icenowy Zheng , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Michal Simek References: <1500852206-28771-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> From: Andre Przywara Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:57:54 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, (sorry for the delay, cleaning up my inbox after holidays) On 01/08/17 11:50, Alexander Graf wrote: > Hi Andre, > > On 24.07.17 01:23, Andre Przywara wrote: >> This is a reworked version of my previous post. It addresses Jassi's >> comments on the driver and also tries to cover Rob's and Mark's comments >> on the binding documentation. >> I dropped the more example-like DT changes from v1, as they are actually >> not meant to be merged into the Linux tree, but instead are provided as >> part of some firmware actually implementing this functionality. >> >> Please let me know what you think. > > Could you please quickly explain what it would take to provide SCMI on > top of this instead of SCPI? On the Linux side basically nothing, that's actually the beauty of this approach. This driver here is just a Linux mailbox interface provider. And both SCMI and SCPI rely on one. So all you would need to do is to provide compliant services on the firmware side and add the proper nodes to the DT. Whether this is SCMI or SCPI does not really make much of a difference, apart from the yet missing upstream Linux support for SCMI, of course. Cheers, Andre. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/7/624 > > I can certainly see that SCPI is an easier target because it's already > upstream and widely spread. But wouldn't it make sense to jump on the > SCMI train while it's taking steam? > > > Thanks, > > Alex