Hello Shenwei

On 2/23/26 21:33, Shenwei Wang wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnaud POULIQUEN <arnaud.pouliquen@foss.st.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:25 AM
To: Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>; Shenwei Wang
[off-list ref]
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>; Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@kernel.org>;
Jonathan Corbet [off-list ref]; Rob Herring [off-list ref]; Krzysztof
Kozlowski [off-list ref]; Conor Dooley [off-list ref]; Bjorn
Andersson [off-list ref]; Mathieu Poirier
[off-list ref]; Frank Li [off-list ref]; Sascha Hauer
[off-list ref]; Shuah Khan [off-list ref]; linux-
gpio@vger.kernel.org; linux-doc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
Pengutronix Kernel Team [off-list ref]; Fabio Estevam
[off-list ref]; Peng Fan [off-list ref];
devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org;
imx@lists.linux.dev; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; dl-linux-imx <linux-
imx@nxp.com>; Bartosz Golaszewski [off-list ref]
Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] gpio: rpmsg: add generic rpmsg GPIO driver
Hello Linus,

On 2/22/26 15:48, Linus Walleij wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 7:57 PM Shenwei Wang [off-list ref]

wrote:

quoted

quoted

Given that, I’d like to hear from the GPIO subsystem maintainers —
@Linus Walleij and @Bartosz Golaszewski — on whether a driver that
works with the current hardware/firmware design could still be
acceptable for upstream inclusion. My understanding is that upstream

generally supports existing, real-world hardware as long as the driver meets
subsystem standards.

quoted

What a swell party this has become.

In this kind of situations I usually refer to
Documentation/process/management-style.rst

Thank you for pointing out the document, I was not aware of its existence. Very
informative!
That help me to understand you proposal below.

quoted

What is the message I as a maintainer is getting from NXP regarding
"gpio: rpmsg: add generic rpmsg GPIO driver"?

Arnaud, who is the only person in this discussion who actually wrote a
standard RPMSG driver (drivers/tty/rpmsg_tty.c), must ACK this patch
if it wants to call itself a "generic" RPMSG GPIO driver, if he does
not, then it isn't.

In Fact there are already 2 "generic" drivers, the second one it the
drivers/rpmsg/rpmsg_char.c, both are used on several platforms.

It is in my plan to test the rpmsg-gpio on ST platform if we go with the generic
approach.

quoted

Is it generic? If it is not, let's call it "NXP rpmsg GPIO driver" and
rename files etc accordingly. Maybe it can share code with the actual
generic RPMSG driver once that arrives, that is more of a library question.

I would like to (re)express my concerns regarding the creation of an NXP-specific
driver. To clarify my concerns, ST, like probably some other SoC vendors, has
rpmsg-gpio and rpmsg-i2c drivers in downstream with plans to upstream them.

Linus, thank you for jumping in and providing the guidance.

I would like to clarify one point here: what we are discussing now is not whether the
driver itself is generic, but rather that the current protocol is not as perfect as Arnaud
would expect, since it contains a few fields that may not be required on their platforms.

Arnaud, if you agree with the points above, my proposal is the following:
  - Remove the fields you mentioned in the protocol and update the driver accordingly so
that we can establish a true baseline for a generic implementation we all agree.
  - Then prepare a separate patch to add support for existing NXP platforms by introducing
the necessary fix‑up functions.

Please let me know if this approach works for you. My goal is to find a solution that works for
everyone — even though I know that pleasing everyone is almost impossible.

This looks reasonable to me, but I am not a maintainer, so I will let 
maintainers share their opinions on your proposition.

Please note that you have also to answer to Bjorn and Mathieu about the 
rational to use RPMsg instead of the virtio protocol.

For the ST platform, the main advantage of RPMsg is the ability to mix 
buses on one virtio interface, whereas Virtio requires allocating vrings 
and mailbox channels per Virtio type. When data rate is not the 
priority, RPMsg may be preferable.

Another limitation e observed, when prototyping a virtio-i2c between 
Linux and a remote processor is the allocation of specific DMA memory 
region shared between the processors[1].

[1] 
https://github.com/arnopo/linux/commit/ae47a1cbf95125ab10952283622653d626e56e6a

Thanks and regards,
Arnaud

Thanks,
Shenwei

quoted

If we proceed in this direction:

-Any vendor wishing to upstream an rpmsg-gpio driver might submit their own
platform-specific version.

- If NXP upstreams other rpmsg drivers, these will likely remain NXP-centric to
maintain compatibility with their legacy firmware and the nxp-rpmsg-gpio driver,
leading to platform-specific versions in several frameworks.

- The implementation will impact not only the Linux side but also the remote side.
Indeed, some operating systems like Zephyr or NuttX implement the rpmsg device
side (Zephyr already implements the rpmsg-tty)

Maintaining a generic approach for RPMsg, similar to what is done for Virtio,
seems to me a more reliable solution, even though it may induce some
downstream costs (ST would also need to break compatibility with legacy ST
remote proc firmware).


In the end, I am just trying to influence the direction for RPMsg, but based on the
discussions in this thread, it seems others share similar expectations, which
should probably be taken into account as well.

Thanks and Regards,
Arnaud


I just want to

quoted

Yours,
Linus Walleij