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;
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 18:38:18 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        cristian.marussi@arm.com, Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
        peter.hilber@opensynergy.com,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] firmware: arm_scmi: Make scmi core independent of the
 transport type
Message-ID: <20200121183818.GA11522@bogus>
References: <4b74f1b6c1f9653241a1b5754525e230b3d76a3f.1579595093.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAK8P3a0fWf-wd8exJa+_UL9n0bQ26W6wd0iQH32osM1Q+cLu_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0fWf-wd8exJa+_UL9n0bQ26W6wd0iQH32osM1Q+cLu_w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:11:11PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:27 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 on 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.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > @Sudeep: Can you please help me getting this tested?
> >

Sure(I may need to rebase on top of -next to test on top of what's queued
for v5.6)

> > V2->V3:
> > - Added more ops to the structure to read/write/memcpy data
> > - Payload is moved to mailbox.c and is handled in transport specific way
> >   now. This resulted in lots of changes.
>
> This addresses the comments I had about the implementation.
>

Thanks for review and all the suggestions Arnd.

> It's still hard for me to judge whether this is a good abstraction as
> long as there is only one backend in the framework, but I see nothing
> immediately wrong with it either.
>

Peter and Peng(both in cc) is trying out virtio and smc/hvc based transport
respectively. Hopefully they will raise concerns(if any) with the abstraction.

--
Regards,
Sudeep