On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 02:09:27PM -0600, Jassi Brar wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 3:32 AM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
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
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel