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

[Mark Brown]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/attachments/20190221/7c5215b0/attachment.sig>