[Sound-open-firmware] [PATCH v6 0/4] Add a vhost RPMsg API

[Vincent Whitchurch]

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:47:06AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 02:13:23PM +0200, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> > So i would be agree with Vincent[2] which proposed to switch on a RPMsg API
> > and creating a vhost rpmsg device. This is also proposed in the 
> > "Enhance VHOST to enable SoC-to-SoC communication" RFC[3].
> > Do you think that this alternative could match with your need?
> 
> As I replied to Vincent, I understand his proposal and the approach taken 
> in the series [3], but I'm not sure I agree, that adding yet another 
> virtual device / driver layer on the vhost side is a good idea. As far as 
> I understand adding new completely virtual devices isn't considered to be 
> a good practice in the kernel. Currently vhost is just a passive "library" 
> and my vhost-rpmsg support keeps it that way. Not sure I'm in favour of 
> converting vhost to a virtual device infrastructure.

I know it wasn't what you meant, but I noticed that the above paragraph
could be read as if my suggestion was to convert vhost to a virtual
device infrastructure, so I just want to clarify that that those are not
related.  The only similarity between what I suggested in the thread in
[2] and Kishon's RFC in [3] is that both involve creating a generic
vhost-rpmsg driver which would allow the RPMsg API to be used for both
sides of the link, instead of introducing a new API just for the server
side.  That can be done without rewriting drivers/vhost/.

> > [1]. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-remoteproc/list/?series=338335 
> > [2]. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-virtualization/msg44195.html
> > [3]. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-remoteproc/msg06634.html