On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:56:23 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 25/01/17 13:50, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:38:47 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >> On 25/01/17 13:32, Jean Delvare wrote: > >>> With a name like that, I assume that the ARM SCPI protocol is only > >>> useful on the ARM architectures. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <[email protected]> > >>> Fixes: 8f1498c03d15 ("firmware: arm_scpi: make it depend on MAILBOX > >>> instead of") > >>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> Please correct me if I'm wrong. > >> > >> I won't say you are wrong but the reason why it's named arm_scpi is > >> because the protocol was developed by ARM. It doesnn't mean only > >> ARM/ARM64 needs to use it, it can be used on any architecture for > >> inter-processor communication using any communication technique > >> (currently mailbox is the only supported in the driver) > > > > OK, thanks for the clarification. In practice, what other architectures > > are using it? > > None, hence I didn't say you are wrong ;). I am fine having the check if > it breaks for any other architecture with COMPILE_TEST.
Not sure what you mean here... The purpose of COMPILE_TEST is to allow limiting the scope of a driver withing hurting the build test coverage. > Also you have mentioned it fixes 8f1498c03d15, have you seen any > regression with that commit ? If so, details in the commit would be > good. Before 8f1498c03d15, the dependency on ARM_MHU made the driver only visible on ARM kernels. Since 8f1498c03d15, the driver is proposed to all, which I think isn't correct. In that sense my proposed patch is fixing a (user-friendliness) regression. But nothing serious. -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support
