Hi Arnaud, > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnaud POULIQUEN <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 4:17 AM > To: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]>; Peng Fan <[email protected]>; > Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>; Mathieu Poirier > <[email protected]>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Krzysztof > Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley <[email protected]>; Shawn > Guo <[email protected]>; Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>; > Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>; Linus Walleij <[email protected]>; > Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> > Cc: Pengutronix Kernel Team <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-arm- > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected]; dl-linux-imx <[email protected]>; Randy Dunlap > <[email protected]>; Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>; linux- > [email protected] > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] Enable Remote GPIO over RPMSG on i.MX > Platform > > Hi Shenwei, > > On 11/5/25 15:12, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > Hi Arnaud, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> On 11/5/25 02:12, Peng Fan wrote: > >>> Hi Shenwei > >>> > >>>> Subject: [PATCH v5 0/5] Enable Remote GPIO over RPMSG on i.MX > >>>> Platform > >>>> > >>>> Support the remote devices on the remote processor via the RPMSG > >>>> bus on i.MX platform. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I have not look into the details of new version, but before that, > >>> just want to check, have we agreed on what Arnaud suggested? > >>> or continue to proceed to be this as i.MX specific? > >> > >> Thanks, Peng, for pointing this out. Regarding the V3 discussions, it > >> seems that I am not the only one suggesting a generic driver. > >> > > > > As I mentioned before, the only i.MX-specific part is the transport > > protocol over > the RPMSG bus. > > In this v5 patches, we’ve included detailed documentation for the > > protocol in a separate file. Any platform that follows the same protocol > > should > work right out of the box. > > > > If you spot anything that could be improved, please let me know! > > My concerns remain the same as those shared previously: > > 1) The simpler one: gpio-imx-rpmsg.c should be renamed to gpio-rpmsg.c. >
Agree. Will fix it in the next version. > 2) The more complex one: the driver should be independent of the remoteproc > driver. The rpmsg protocol relies on virtio and can be used in contexts other > than > remoteproc. In other words, the struct rpmsg_driver and its associated > operations should be defined within the rpmsg-gpio driver, not in the > remoteproc > driver. > The GPIO driver operates independently of the remoteproc driver. It functions based on the defined GPIO-RPMSG transport protocol. Any remoteproc that supports this protocol can exchange data with the GPIO driver via the underlying rpmsg bus. Placing the rpmsg_driver (which manages the rpmsg channel) within the remoteproc driver is more logical, as rpmsg channels run on the rpmsg bus. This bus is defined inside the remoteproc device tree node and is populated by the corresponding remoteproc driver. Thanks, Shenwei > > Thanks, > Arnaud > > > > > Thanks, > > Shenwei > > > >> Thanks, > >> Arnaud > >> > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Peng. > >
