On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:44:27AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 10:03:29 +0100 Loic Poulain wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 19:39, Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 09:49:24 +0100 Loic Poulain wrote: > > > > > Looks like patch 1 is a bug fix and patches 2-5 add a new feature. > > > > > Is that correct? > > > > > > > > That's correct, though strictly speaking 2-5 are also bug fix since > > > > remote node > > > > communication is supposed to be supported in QRTR to be compatible with > > > > other implementations (downstream or private implementations). > > > > > > Is there a spec we can quote to support that, or is QRTR purely > > > a vendor interface? > > > > There is no public spec AFAIK, this is a vendor interface. > > > > > What's the end user issue that we're solving? After firmware upgrade > > > things stop working? Things don't work on HW platforms on which this > > > was not tested? Don't work on new HW platforms? > > > > QRTR is usually something used in SoC context as communication > > protocol for accessing the differents IPs (modem, WiFi, DSP, etc) > > around the CPU. In that case, these components (nodes), identified > > with a 'node ID', are directly reachable by the CPU (QRTR over shared > > memory). This case is not impacted by the series, all nodes beeing CPU > > immediate neighbours. > > > > But today QRTR is no more a ARCH_QCOM thing only, It is also exposed > > as communication channel for QCOM based wireless modules (e.g. SDX55 > > modem), over PCIe/MHI. In that case, the host is only connected to the > > Modem CPU QRTR endpoint that in turn gives access to other embedded > > Modem endpoints, acting as a gateway/bridge for accessing > > non-immediate nodes from the host. currently, this case is not working > > and the series fix it. > > > > However, AFAIK, the only device would request this support is the > > SDX55 PCIe module, that just landed in mhi-next. So I assume it's fine > > if the related part of the series targets net-next. > > Thanks! Sounds like net-next will work just fine, but won't you need > these changes in mhi-next, then? In which case you should send a pull > request based on Linus' tree so that both Mani and netdev can pull it > in. > > Mani, WDYT?
Sorry, missed this. mhi-next doesn't need these changes and since you've applied to net-next, everything is fine! I still need to apply the MHI patch which got applied to net-next and provide an immutable branch to Kalle for another set of MHI patches... Thanks, Mani
