On 06/07/17 10:27, Jassi Brar wrote: > 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. > I said it *may not be used*, currently it is used. Also can you please answer other questions I had on mailbox API and not breaking SCPI exiting users ? I need your suggestion to proceed on that. Similar to SCPI, SCMI will be used by other platforms which must have doorbell mailbox mechanism. -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
