Hello Hari, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Hari Kanigeri <hari.kanigeri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ben, > >> Yes, dynamic memory management. With DSP Link on the OMAPL138 the >> memory allocated to the DSP must be specified as a 'hole' in Linux >> memory at boot-time [1[2][3]. It seems (perhaps this is wishful >> thinking) that dspbridge does not have this limitation. > > DSPBridge doesn't has this requirement. Thank you for confirming. >> Also dynamic application loading. With DSP Link it is possible to run >> multiple linux processes concurrently communicating with DSP tasks but >> the image loaded and executed on the DSP side must contain the code >> for all of the tasks at load time [4]. It seems that dspbridge does >> not have this limitation. >> >> I am very interested in learning details about both dsplink and >> dspbridge; please reply with more details or corrections as you see >> fit. > > DSPBridge and DSPLink IPCs are for 2 different purposes. So before you > make a switch to one of the IPC, I would recommend to you to make sure > your requirements are met. > To check the differences between DSPBridge and DSPLink, please check > this email thread contributed by Richard W. > http://linux.omap.com/pipermail/linux-omap-open-source/2007-May/009850.html. Good point. Thank you for making that clear to me. And for the link to the post, I'm regret that I missed that in my initial research. I'm starting to think that maybe a direct comparison between DSPLink and dspbridge is not a fair one. > We are working on making some of core functionalities such as DMM, > resource Management, reset Management of co-processors generic for > any IPC to use. So if DSPLink is missing DMM functionality then it > should be just the matter of DSPLink adapting to this. I don't get what you're trying to say here, sorry. Would DSPLink be one of the IPCs for which the 'core functionalities' could be adapted? Could you explain an example of how DMM being made generic for any IPC to use could be applied to DSPLink? > I am not aware of the official word from T.I to support dspbridge on > OMAP1, but as the community you will have the support in case you want > to go with dspbridge option. > > On a high level, this is what needs to be done to provide support for OMAP1. > > 1. Adapt to iommu. Add support if the support is not present for OMAP1. > > 2. Adapt to mailbox > > 3. Reset and Power management adaptation for OMAP1. Thanks for the roadmap. This doesn't sound too daunting, but that could be because I am ignorant of the details. :) It is good to know that the community (at least you) would be interested in reviewing and picking up patches that integrate dspbridge support for the omapl1x. I'm still not sure about the iommu features required by dspbridge, I will need to look into this. But 2+3 sound like they could be provided by DSPLink itself. Would it be sane to put dspbridge on top of DSPLink? Just to sound it out, the DSP-side base image could be DSPBios + DSPLink (DSP-side) and the ARM-side would be made of dspbridge where the IPC is DSP Link 'compatible'. This could avoid a rewrite of the DSP-side of dspbridge maybe? All crazy ideas aside. We are very pleased with all the help you (Hari), Felipe and Deepali have offered us in trying to understand dspbridge and its relationship to DSP Link. Many thanks again and we look forward to any more insights you have to offer. Best Regards, Ben Gardiner --- Nanometrics Inc. http://www.nanometrics.ca -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
