Hi Julien, On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 02:29:13PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 24/12/2021 01:16, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > One more question: As you probably seen - Jan had a complains about SCI > > > term. He said SCI is ambiguous with ACPI's System > > > Control Interrupt. > > > > I see his point. As a term I see "SCMI" often and sometimes "SCPI" but > > "SCI" is the first time I saw it with this patch series. > > > > > > > I think of using SC (as System Control) instead. What do you think > > > about it? > > > > Yeah, I am not great at naming things but maybe "ARM_SCI"? "SC" alone > > doesn't give me enough context to guess what it is. > > I might be missing some context. Why are naming everything SCI rather than > SMCI?
Because we're expecting other interfaces and transport to be implemented, such as for example: scmi_mailbox, scpi_smc, scpi_mailbox, ti_sci_smc etc. > > > > > Or we could broaden the scope and call it "firmware_interface"? > How would this be used? Will it be a list of interface that will be exposed > to the guest? > The idea is to set mediator type for each Domain, so for example Xen can use scmi_mailbox to communicate with SCP, Dom0 and DomD are also using scmi_mailbox, but DomU using scmi_smc mediator because we have only 3 mailboxes in system. This is not implemented yet, right now, we are introducing only scmi_smc support. In future, multiple mediator support can be added to Xen. Best regards, Oleksii.
