[PATCH v4 2/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Support 'reg-io-width' property for shared memory

[Florian Fainelli]

On 10/24/24 04:05, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Gentle ping! Not sure if my earlier email got into spam or didn't land
> in lore/ML. Just thought of checking again.

You did not land in spam, just being quite busy.

> 
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 01:57:09PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:24:50AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>> Some shared memory areas might only support a certain access width,
>>>> such as 32-bit, which memcpy_{from,to}_io() does not adhere to at least
>>>> on ARM64 by making both 8-bit and 64-bit accesses to such memory.
>>>>
>>>> Update the shmem layer to support reading from and writing to such
>>>> shared memory area using the specified I/O width in the Device Tree. The
>>>> various transport layers making use of the shmem.c code are updated
>>>> accordingly to pass the I/O accessors that they store.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This looks good to me now, much simpler. I will push this to -next soon,
>>> but it won't be for v6.12. I have already sent PR for that. I want this
>>> to be in -next for longer just to see if anyone has any comments and
>>> doesn't break any platform(which it shouldn't anyways).
>>>
>>> Just hoping if anyone looks at it and have feedback once it is in -next.
>>> I will apply formally at v6.12-rc1 and report back if no one complains
>>> until then.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Florian,
>>
>> Just thought I will check with you if the content is -next are fine as I now
>> recall I did the rebase as this patch was original posted before the rework
>> of transport as modules were merged. Please confirm if you are happy with the
>> rebase as you see in -next. I also had to rebase it on recent fixes that
>> Justin added as there were trivial conflicts.
>>
>> Another thing I wanted to check is if [1] series has any impact on this.
>> IIUC no, but it would be good to give a go in terms of testing just in case
>> that as well lands in -next.

linux-next as of today (2024-10-24) still works good on the affected 
platform, thanks for asking!
-- 
Florian