On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:42:25AM +0100, Arnaud Pouliquen wrote:
On 2/21/19 5:39 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 19-02-19, 09:55, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
On 2/19/19 9:09 AM, xiang xiao wrote:
Rather than evolve the IPC, i would say it makes more sense that we "reuse" existing upstream frameworks.. As given below by xiang this seems to have support for RTOSes (see point 4 below) and looking at below it seems to have much better coverage across systems.
This should also help in easy adoption of SoF for non Intel people...
Also looking at it, lot of IPC code, DSP loading etc would go away making SoF code lesser in footprint.
I think benefits outweigh the effort of porting to a framework which is already upstream and used on many platforms for different vendors!
Just for information... ST Microelectronics plans to port SOF to at least one of its platforms (based on ARM cores). Today, for the co-processor management we use the rpmsg and remoteproc frameworks on the Linux kernel side and OpenAMP on the remote processor side. We are therefore interested in xiang's work. An advantage we see in this generic solution is that compatibility between the Linux kernel frameworks and the OpenAMP library is ensured through discussions in the Linux and OpenAMP communities, involving maintainers and several vendors.
This is a very good point, especially with people actually jumping on it if we can avoid having multiple ABIs to worry about that would make life a lot easier. We should at least figure out if it will be disruptive to adapt it later on, even if Intel ends up continuing to use a custom system integration.