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;
From:   Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
CC:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "jassisinghbrar@gmail.com" <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        "cristian.marussi@arm.com" <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
 transport type
Thread-Topic: [PATCH V2] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
 transport type
Thread-Index: AQHVx5pwG3O6xvtPWkmuLxJSz4SzNKfrcuWQgABfY4CAAlluoA==
Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 02:26:43 +0000
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB4481D300CC3B936A1F32B30688310@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3f5567ec928e20963d729350e6d674c4acb0c7a0.1578648530.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <AM0PR04MB4481AA813CB53AC0D2C238C788370@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200115143325.GA12340@bogus>
In-Reply-To: <20200115143325.GA12340@bogus>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7dff0cf9-f484-4916-0ca6-08d79af4b1a5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Jan 2020 02:26:43.7966
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 1YTn3XgLwGB2hVak4yx0pdeBfr5OFC+66DQU1TUNbpWeaglckWeZ6tuKzBNvgFJR9yrrKLBf3RBaSmdPKNaDHw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR04MB7172
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of
> transport type
>=20
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 08:53:51AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: [PATCH V2] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent
> > > of transport type
> > >
> > > 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, some of the transport protocols getting discussed
> > > currently are SMC/HVC, SPCI (built on top of SMC/HVC), OPTEE based
> > > mailbox (similar to SPCI), and vitio based transport as alternative t=
o
> mailbox.
> > >
> > > The transport protocols just need to provide struct scmi_desc, which
> > > also implements the struct scmi_transport_ops.
> >
> > I need put shmem for each protocol, is this expected?
>=20
> No, it's optional. If some/all protocols need dedicated channel for whate=
ver
> reasons(like DVFS/Perf for polling based transfers), they can specify.
> Absence of dedicated channel infers all protocols share the channel(s).
>=20
> > Sudeep,
> > I am able to use smc to directly transport data, with adding a new
> > file, just named smc.c including a scmi_smc_desc,
>=20
> Good.
>=20
> > But I not find a good way to pass smc id to smc transport file.
> >
>=20
> IMO, we have to deal this in transport specific init. I am thinking of
> chan_setup in context of this patch. Does that make sense ?

Yes, will you implement that?

>=20
> [...]
>=20
> > +
> > +    scmi_clk: protocol@14 {
> > +            reg =3D <0x14>;
> > +            shmem =3D <&cpu_scp_lpri>;
> > +            #clock-cells =3D <1>;
> > +            clocks =3D <&osc_32k>, <&osc_24m>, <&clk_ext1>,
> <&clk_ext2>,
> > +                     <&clk_ext3>, <&clk_ext4>;
> > +            clock-names =3D "osc_32k", "osc_24m", "clk_ext1",
> "clk_ext2",
> > +                          "clk_ext3", "clk_ext4";
>=20
> This caught my attention, why do we need these clocks phandle list and cl=
ock
> names above ? Ideally just need scmi_clk phandle and the index to refer a=
nd
> names need to be provided by the firmware.

No need, I forgot the remove them.

Thanks
Peng.

>=20
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep