Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1411062 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-01 12:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-01 20:50 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-06-01 12:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> - 2016-06-01 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2016-06-01 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> - 2016-06-01 20:50 +0200
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 12:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants |
| Message-ID | <rFbpM-788-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On 30/05/16 09:30, Neil Armstrong wrote: > On 05/27/2016 10:17 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote: [..] > > While looking for other ARMv8 based platform, I found that the RK3368 > platform has the same SCPI implementation as Amlogic. > > They extended it with DDR, system and thermal commands. > > Look at : > https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_cmd.h > >https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_protocol.c > > So the SCPI must have a framework to allow different protocol > versions, and must allow command extension. Grouping Rockchip and > Amlogic should be done, thus needing a generic name like vendor_scpi > or with a version. > Makes sense. I understand the need to reuse and I need a bit of time to have a look at the code(both Amlogic one's you have pointed out and the Rockchip one) in detail to see what's the best way to proceed. I will have a look at this later this week and get back to you. > Sudeep, could you somehow find out which version of the protocol > AmLogic and Rockchip based their SCPI development ? > Yes I tried checking with Rockchip but didn't get a response. But my guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI unfortunately :( -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 18:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants |
| Message-ID | <rFhlx-2kH-67@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1411062 |
[ + Heiko, who may know about the Rockchip implementation ] Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> writes: > On 30/05/16 09:30, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> On 05/27/2016 10:17 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > [..] > >> >> While looking for other ARMv8 based platform, I found that the RK3368 >> platform has the same SCPI implementation as Amlogic. >> >> They extended it with DDR, system and thermal commands. >> >> Look at : >> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_cmd.h >> >>https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_protocol.c >> > > >> So the SCPI must have a framework to allow different protocol >> versions, and must allow command extension. Grouping Rockchip and >> Amlogic should be done, thus needing a generic name like vendor_scpi >> or with a version. >> > > Makes sense. I understand the need to reuse and I need a bit of time to > have a look at the code(both Amlogic one's you have pointed out and the > Rockchip one) in detail to see what's the best way to proceed. I will > have a look at this later this week and get back to you. > >> Sudeep, could you somehow find out which version of the protocol >> AmLogic and Rockchip based their SCPI development ? >> > > Yes I tried checking with Rockchip but didn't get a response. But my > guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI > unfortunately :( And if one partner did that, probably everyone else did as well, but this being the ARM universe, they all did it slightly differently. :( We know from experience, that this happens all the time in the absence of a clear standard, so this framework will need to be extended to be useful. Thanks, Kevin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rFhlz-2kH-127@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1411388 |
On 01/06/16 17:30, Kevin Hilman wrote: > [ + Heiko, who may know about the Rockchip implementation ] > > Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> writes: > >> On 30/05/16 09:30, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>> On 05/27/2016 10:17 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> >> [..] >> >>> >>> While looking for other ARMv8 based platform, I found that the RK3368 >>> platform has the same SCPI implementation as Amlogic. >>> >>> They extended it with DDR, system and thermal commands. >>> >>> Look at : >>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_cmd.h >>> >>> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox/scpi_protocol.c >>> >> >> >>> So the SCPI must have a framework to allow different protocol >>> versions, and must allow command extension. Grouping Rockchip and >>> Amlogic should be done, thus needing a generic name like vendor_scpi >>> or with a version. >>> >> >> Makes sense. I understand the need to reuse and I need a bit of time to >> have a look at the code(both Amlogic one's you have pointed out and the >> Rockchip one) in detail to see what's the best way to proceed. I will >> have a look at this later this week and get back to you. >> >>> Sudeep, could you somehow find out which version of the protocol >>> AmLogic and Rockchip based their SCPI development ? >>> >> >> Yes I tried checking with Rockchip but didn't get a response. But my >> guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI >> unfortunately :( > > And if one partner did that, probably everyone else did as well, but > this being the ARM universe, they all did it slightly differently. :( > No doubt :) > We know from experience, that this happens all the time in the absence > of a clear standard, so this framework will need to be extended to be > useful. > Completely agreed, better to gather all the information possible before we proceed. I will try to check if I can get hold of old version internally in the meantime. -- Regards, Sudeep
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 20:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] scpi: Add SCPI framework to handle vendors variants |
| Message-ID | <rFjnk-3G8-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1411388 |
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 1. Juni 2016, 09:30:16 schrieb Kevin Hilman: > [ + Heiko, who may know about the Rockchip implementation ] > > Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> writes: > > On 30/05/16 09:30, Neil Armstrong wrote: > >> On 05/27/2016 10:17 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > [..] > > > >> While looking for other ARMv8 based platform, I found that the RK3368 > >> platform has the same SCPI implementation as Amlogic. > >> > >> They extended it with DDR, system and thermal commands. > >> > >> Look at : > >> https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbo > >> x/scpi_cmd.h>> > >>https://github.com/geekboxzone/mmallow_kernel/blob/geekbox/drivers/mailbox > >>/scpi_protocol.c>> > >> So the SCPI must have a framework to allow different protocol > >> versions, and must allow command extension. Grouping Rockchip and > >> Amlogic should be done, thus needing a generic name like vendor_scpi > >> or with a version. > > > > Makes sense. I understand the need to reuse and I need a bit of time to > > have a look at the code(both Amlogic one's you have pointed out and the > > Rockchip one) in detail to see what's the best way to proceed. I will > > have a look at this later this week and get back to you. > > > >> Sudeep, could you somehow find out which version of the protocol > >> AmLogic and Rockchip based their SCPI development ? > > > > Yes I tried checking with Rockchip but didn't get a response. But my > > guess is that it was some preliminary unpublished version of SCPI > > unfortunately :( I only glanced a bit on the scpi stuff of the rk3368, but it seems you already found the rockchip implementation above. The mailbox driver entered mainline recently, but I think it differs a bit from the one used there. I've also added Caesar, who did the upstreaming of the mailbox driver, maybe he knows more about the scpi side as well. Heiko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web