On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jassi, > > On 06/07/17 07:28, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> I have posted the SCMI patches now[1], >>> >> I wish I was CC'ed on that. Now LKML seems too busy to forward it. >> > > Yes, my mistake, I should have cc-ed you. > >>> please let me know how to get >>> both SCPI and SCMI working together with different doorbell bits on the >>> same channel. >>> >> You say in the cover letter : >> "Let me begin admitting that we are introducing yet another protocol to >> achieve same things as many existing protocols like ARM SCPI, TI SCI, >> QCOM RPM, Nvidia Tegra BPMP, and so on" >> >> So SCMI is supposed to replace SCPI, SCI, RPM and BPMP or SCMI is >> to be used for future platforms. >> If SCPI and SCMI achieve the same, why have them both active simultaneously? >> > > Yes it may not be used, but the firmware might support both for backward > compatibility. E.g. on Juno, we still may continue supporting SCPI while > we transition to SCMI. So both old and new DTs must work. > Sure, but still there is no reason to have both SCMI and SCPI active during _runtime_. Either SCMI or SCPI should be populated by DT, not both. >> Assuming there really is some sane excuse :- > > Yes as I mentioned above. > If you specify only one of SCPI/SCMI, you wouldn't need the shim arbitrator. -- 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
