[alsa-devel] [v4,00/14] ASoC: Sound Open Firmware (SOF) core

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 18/02/2019 20:03, Xiang Xiao wrote:
> Should we utilize official IPC frameowrk instead reinverting the wheel?
> 1.Load firmware by drivers/remoteproc
>    https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/remoteproc.txt
> 2.Do the comunication through drivers/rpmsg
>    https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/rpmsg.txt
> Many vendor(TI, Qualcomm, ST, NXP, Xilinx...) migrate to remoteproc/rpmsg, why Intel provide an other IPC mechanism?

It definitely makes more sense to use rpmsg for Generic IPC driver here.

Qualcomm DSP audio drivers (non SOF) already use rpmsg. This will 
definitely help everyone in future while immigrating to SOF.

> Actually, remoteproc/rpmsg is much better than SOF IPC because:
> 1.Completely isolate the firmware load and message transfer:
>    The same rpmsg driver could run on any remote processor
> 2.Separate the application protocol from transfer layer:
>    One remote processor could host many rpmsg services
> 3.Completely follow kernel driver model(rpsmg_bus, rpmsg_device and rpmsg_driver).
> 4.Support by many RTOS(Bare Metal, FreeRTOS, Zephyr, NuttX, Nucleus, uC/OS...) for remote side:
>    https://github.com/OpenAMP/open-amp
>    https://github.com/NXPmicro/rpmsg-lite
> 5.Maintained by the standard committee:
>    https://www.multicore-association.org/workgroup/oamp.php
>    https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=virtio
> Since the keypoint of SOF is the platform agnostic and modular, please use the standard technique here.
> 
> Thanks
> Xiang
> _______________________________________________
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> Alsa-devel at alsa-project.org
> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
> 
--srini