On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:47:06AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:13:23PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:

quoted

So i would be agree with Vincent[2] which proposed to switch on a RPMsg API
and creating a vhost rpmsg device. This is also proposed in the 
"Enhance VHOST to enable SoC-to-SoC communication" RFC[3].
Do you think that this alternative could match with your need?

As I replied to Vincent, I understand his proposal and the approach taken 
in the series [3], but I'm not sure I agree, that adding yet another 
virtual device / driver layer on the vhost side is a good idea. As far as 
I understand adding new completely virtual devices isn't considered to be 
a good practice in the kernel. Currently vhost is just a passive "library" 
and my vhost-rpmsg support keeps it that way. Not sure I'm in favour of 
converting vhost to a virtual device infrastructure.

I know it wasn't what you meant, but I noticed that the above paragraph
could be read as if my suggestion was to convert vhost to a virtual
device infrastructure, so I just want to clarify that that those are not
related.  The only similarity between what I suggested in the thread in
[2] and Kishon's RFC in [3] is that both involve creating a generic
vhost-rpmsg driver which would allow the RPMsg API to be used for both
sides of the link, instead of introducing a new API just for the server
side.  That can be done without rewriting drivers/vhost/.

quoted

[1]. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/list/?series=338335 
[2]. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-virtualization/msg44195.html
[3]. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-remoteproc/msg06634.html  

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization