Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148496-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:54:00 +0100
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	james.quinlan@broadcom.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, peng.fan@oss.nxp.com,
	michal.simek@amd.com, quic_sibis@quicinc.com,
	konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, souvik.chakravarty@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Add dedicated vendor
 protocols submenu
Message-ID: <Zh_GaLMJdf7wv2sp@pluto>
References: <20240408093052.3801576-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20240408093052.3801576-3-cristian.marussi@arm.com>
 <20240417120945.jjcpfwknj5urb6bk@bogus>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240417120945.jjcpfwknj5urb6bk@bogus>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 01:09:45PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 10:30:52AM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > Add a dedicated Kconfig submenu and directory where to collect SCMI vendor
> > protocols implementations.
> >
> 
> This looks fine. But I would wait until the first vendor protocol is
> ready to be merged to merge this as baseline. Hope that's OK.
> 

Absolutely, I think some vendor protocols currently on the list (beside
their ready-to-merge status) will rebase on this once this is in -next.

What remain to discuss really, it is, as I mentioned offline, if we want
to also group the vendor protocols headers (the one containing the
public protocol ops) somewhere...I think now they are just placed on top
level include/ named like

 /vendor1_scmi_something.h
 /scmi_vendor2_something_else.h

.or (as I now remembered you mentioned offline) just leave as it is for
now and then post a patch on top to shuffle around the headers into some
common include/scmi/ top dir...not sure anyway if it worth...maybe some
header name convention is fine (but I ignore if there are rules about
polluting more or less the top level /include/ dir :D)

I assume also that this mechanism is fine for vendors at this point, since
all the feedback we've got from  them till now was on specific (and very
much welcome) code-reviewed stuff...

Thanks,
Cristian