Re: [PATCH 3/9] firmware: arm_scmi: add basic driver infrastructure for SCMI
From: Jassi Brar
Date: Sat Jul 08 2017 - 01:32:54 EST
Hi Roy, Matt, Nishant, Harb Abdulhamid, Loc,
I have a gut feeling you guys were part of the SCMI spec committee. If
so, could you please chime in?
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/07/17 17:52, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> Hi Arnd, Hi Rob, Hi Mark,
>> [CC'ing only those who I have the email id of]
>>> + * scmi_do_xfer() - Do one transfer
>>> + *
>>> + * @info: Pointer to SCMI entity information
>>> + * @xfer: Transfer to initiate and wait for response
>>> + *
>>> + * Return: -ETIMEDOUT in case of no response, if transmit error,
>>> + * return corresponding error, else if all goes well,
>>> + * return 0.
>>> + */
>>> +int scmi_do_xfer(const struct scmi_handle *handle, struct scmi_xfer *xfer)
>>> + int ret;
>>> + int timeout;
>>> + struct scmi_info *info = handle_to_scmi_info(handle);
>>> + struct device *dev = info->dev;
>>> + ret = mbox_send_message(info->tx_chan, xfer);
>> The api is
>> int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *mssg)
>> where each controller driver defines its own format in which it accepts
>> the 'mssg' to be transmitted.
> Yes they can continue that, but SCMI just doesn't depend on that.
>> For example :-
>> ti_msgmgr_send_data(struct mbox_chan *, struct ti_msgmgr_message *)
>> rockchip_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *, struct rockchip_mbox_msg *)
>> ....and so on... you get the idea.
> Yes I am aware of that.
>> Some controller driver may ignore the 'mssg' because only an interrupt line
>> is shared with the remote and not some register/fifo.
>> For example,
>> sti_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *, void *ignored)
> Exactly, now with SCMI, every controller *can do* that, as we just care
> about the signaling which in other terms I have so far referred as
No, the controllers can not ... unless you clone and adapt the 9
drivers+bindings to conform to the expectations of SCMI (like you
attempted with MHU recently). Also, then mandate every future
controller driver must emulate "doorbell" channels.
As the mailbox maintainer, I am open to suggestions that would allow
every controller to support SCMI.
But compared to the options of scmi-as-a-library and
scmi-as-child-node-of-platform-parent, this does not even qualify as
Why? Because SCMI is but one protocol that provides 4 features ATM,
and certainly can not provide for every whim and quirk of future
platforms. Among the sane requirements are watchdog,
suspend/resume/hibernation and thermal _control_ (not just sensor
readings) and among the weird are video, network and storage over
mailbox api. And even a filesystem backed by read/write over mailbox!!
And these are only that I have worked on first hand.
The point is : you can not assume SCMI to be the only protocol
running over a controller _and_ you can not dictate other protocols to
not touch certain bits of the signal register/fifo.
In simplest terms, controller driver can not cater to only a
particular client. That's the reason we have the controller driver
define the message format and clients conform to it.