Re: [PATCHv2 0/3] arm64 xilinx zynqmp firmware interface

[Sudeep Holla]

On 17/08/17 11:32, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 17.8.2017 11:12, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 17/08/17 09:42, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> On 17.8.2017 09:52, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 17/08/17 07:10, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>> On 16.8.2017 17:39, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/08/17 13:24, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> xilinx is using this interface for very long time and we
>>>>>>> can't merge our driver changes to Linux because of
>>>>>>> missing communication layer with firmware. This interface
>>>>>>> was developed before scpi and scmi was available. In
>>>>>>> connection to power management scpi and scmi are missing 
>>>>>>> pieces which we already use. There is a separate
>>>>>>> discussion how to extend scmi to support all our use
>>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So maybe we should wait and see where this discussion is
>>>>>> going before we merge yet another firmware interface?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It will take a lot of time when this discussion ends and I
>>>>> can't see any benefit to hold all
>>>> 
>>>> Well, so far, the benefit of this series is exactly nil, as the
>>>> code it brings is *unused*. It is impossible to review in
>>>> isolation.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ok. I will add others drivers to this series that's not a
>>> problem.
>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, you can continue finding out how *not* to have
>>>> to merge this code, and instead focus on using the
>>>> infrastructure we already have, or at least influence the
>>>> infrastructure that is being designed. It will be much better
>>>> than dumping yet another slab of "I'm so different" code that
>>>> is going to ultimately bitrot.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to look the better proposed way. SCPI is ancient and
>>> SCMI is replacement and not merged yet. We already had a call
>>> with arm and Sudeep was on it too where outcome from that was
>>> that we can't use that because it doesn't support what we need to
>>> support now.
>>> 
>> 
>> OK, none of the specifics were discussed in the meeting to conclude
>> that SCMI can't be used. My takeaway from the meeting was Xilinx
>> has this interface for long and being deployed in various systems.
>> I would like to get into specifics before discarding SCMI as
>> unusable. What bothers me more is that why was that not raised
>> during the specification review which was quite a long period IMO ?
>> I tend to think Xilinx never bothered to look/review the
>> specification as this f/w interface was already there.
> 
> Xilinx is using this interface from Aug 2015. I am not aware about
> any invitation to spec review. And not sure who was there from
> xilinx.
> 

Sure, I can understand and that's not a problem but Xilinx was involved.

>> 
>> However I still can't see why this was posted once we started
>> pushing out SCMI patches especially given that this f/w interface
>> was there for long and no attempts were made in past to upstream
>> this.
> 
> The reason is simple which is upstream our code which depends on
> this communication layer. I don't think there is quick path to move
> to different interface than this one.
> 

Do you mean "smc" when you refer communication layer ? If so, that's
fine. You can use "smc" as transport with SCMI if you want,
specification doesn't prevent that.

>> 
>> Also I am not dismissing the series yet, but if I find that SCMI
>> can be used(after getting specifics from this series myself), I
>> will at-least argue against the "SCMI can't be used" argument.
> 
> This is not my argument that we can't use SCMI. This is what was my 
> understanding from that meeting we had. And definitely there is no
> quick path for us to switch to SCMI and breaks all current existing
> customers.
> 

I understand the latter and I mentioned the same earlier, but I disagree
with the former. That meeting was mostly introduction(and informal IMO)
and didn't involve anything at the technical level.

> And this interface is just in the same position as current SCPI. It 
> means you have SCPI already merged and you are adding new one. SCMI 
> could be maybe also just SCPIv2.

Agreed, but it was posted as soon as the specification is out and so is
the SCMI. I am not arguing it as a point, but just mentioning that this
post was simply bad timing :)

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep