On 08/09/16 20:31, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
On 09/07/2016 01:55 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
[...] full mail thread in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747
Overall architecture is very similar to SCPI[4] as follows:
Dumb Q: I'm curious about the limitations in SCPI that were found that
made TI decided to implement its own version.
[...]
Long story short, investigation was done into what SCPI was providing
(TI internal ofcourse) and SCPI did not fit our SoC generation needs -
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Very helpful.
To be clear, I'm not a proponent of always using ARM "standards"
(especially when it's not exactly clear if it's a standard or a Juno
thing) but I'm seeing several SoCs come out with SCPI derivatives, or
old ARM versions etc., so was just curious about the decision making
process.
Thanks for sharing,
Kevin
So, any other comments for this series or shall we still try to get it
merged for 4.9? We are -rc5 so it might be too late already and probably
better to push this for 4.10.
-Tero
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
