Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3f5567ec928e20963d729350e6d674c4acb0c7a0.1578648530.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAK8P3a1MLyP4ooyEDiBF1fE0BJGocgDmO1f5Qrvn_W5eqahz8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200113064156.lt3xxpzygattz3he@vireshk-i7> <CAK8P3a2u6s4MAM_9bOqSt5NwVc4XrXs9W36tp-7rWWTXx0+pRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200114092615.nvj6mkwkplub5ul7@vireshk-i7>
In-Reply-To: <20200114092615.nvj6mkwkplub5ul7@vireshk-i7>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 10:56:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0jXyJArzQFd+u68iRvXNnXb_oHbWF9-abvvFuqhpi-NA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
 transport type
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        cristian.marussi@arm.com, peng.fan@nxp.com,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:26 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 13-01-20, 12:36, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 7:42 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > To answer all three, what I meant is that the payload pointer appears
> > to be transport specific and
>
> I am not sure if I understood the below statement properly. Is there
> something missing from it ?
>
> > should not be part of the common
> > structure if there is generic way to access it.
>
> The scmi protocol requires a block of shared memory which is
> represented by struct scmi_shared_mem, and payload is this memory
> block itself. This block of memory is accessed throughout driver.c
> file using ioread/write commands. If payload is transport specific, so
> will be those accesses, isn't it ? Are you suggesting to move all this
> to mailbox.c (the transport specific file) instead ? I am sorry, but I
> am not able to understand how exactly you want me to reorder code here
> :(

My point was that you cannot mix __iomem accesses with pointer
accesses. As I understood it, the current version uses a pointer to a
hardware mailbox with structured data, so you have to use ioremap()
to get a token you can pass into ioread(), but (some of) the new
transport types would just be backed by regular RAM, on which this
is not a well-defined operation and you have to use memremap()
and memcpy() instead.

     Arnd