Re: [RFC PATCH] firmware: scmi: Make SCMI arch independent

[Michal Simek]

On 7/10/26 09:35, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 09:03:32AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > On 7/9/26 17:56, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 03:27:00PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> > > > On heterogenious systems like AMD/Xilinx FPGA there is a need to talk to
> > > > SCMI server from different architectures than ARM that's why remove
> > > > ARM/ARM64 Kconfig dependency with also remove ARM from description and
> > > > rename folder to reflect it.
> > >
> > > While I understand dropping the dependency on ARM (I always wanted to do
> > > that and test if it worked at all on some otehr archs with QEMU), I am
> > > not sure about the whole renaming party ? why is needed just for
> > > cosmetic reasons ? it is at the end an arm originated protocol so I dont
> > > see it as a being wrong to be named as such even though used by other
> > > archs...I have not really strong opinion on this...
> >
> > I have been in CC on U-Boot RPMI patches which got to my attention because
> > I don't want to have another interface for MB-V(riscv-) running in
> > programmable logic and have another server in the system doing the same
> > thing.
>
> Ah that's interesting. I wasn't aware of that. I still agree with the move
> in principle, but how does that align with these:
>
> drivers/clk/clk-rpmi.c
> drivers/irqchip/irq-riscv-rpmi-sysmsi.c
> include/linux/mailbox/riscv-rpmi-message.h
> drivers/mailbox/riscv-sbi-mpxy-mbox.c(Should be fine as it is just transport)

I am having separate discussion on u-boot mailing list about RPMI and it's usage 
on non riscv architectures because one raised argument was that it is community 
driver spec compare to SCMI which is owned by ARM. But IMHO only for riscv.

> Now I feel we need some alignment before making $subject move.
>
> > Based on that we had discussed about it with Vincent and Souvik (we missed
> > you there) about using SCMI on non ARM platform and both of them didn't see
> > the concern to be marked as ARM only protocol.
> > Truth is that some of protocols have ARM in description, file names, etc but
> > some of them not. That's why I think it is good time to sync it up and
> > enable
> > running this protocol on other SOCs.
> >
> > > ... my concern really is ... wont this full scale rename simply generate
> > > a lot of un-needed churn for future fixes and/or backporting ?
> > I don't think it is going to be a big problem because it is just git mv
> > which git is able to gracefully handle.
>
> Otherwise it may end up being unnecessary churn though I completely agree
> with the git/backporting aspects. Just don't want to churn things up until
> we have some plan and further changes/users of this move.

As I wrote above AMD/Xilinx platform with SCMI server where ARM RPU/APUs (with 
multiple VMs) and Microblaze-V in programmable logic acting as separate agents 
is going to be the first user. And for being able to run SCMI on Linux running 
on Microblaze-V I need enable SCMI on non ARM architecture.

Thanks,
Michal