[RFC PATCH] firmware: scmi: Make SCMI arch independent

[Michal Simek]

On 7/20/26 16:43, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 7/14/26 06:16, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 5:56 PM Cristian Marussi
>> <cristian.marussi at arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 03:27:00PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>>>> On heterogenious systems like AMD/Xilinx FPGA there is a need to talk to
>>>> SCMI server from different architectures than ARM that's why remove
>>>> ARM/ARM64 Kconfig dependency with also remove ARM from description and
>>>> rename folder to reflect it.
>>>
>>> While I understand dropping the dependency on ARM (I always wanted to do
>>> that and test if it worked at all on some otehr archs with QEMU), I am
>>> not sure about the whole renaming party ? why is needed just for
>>> cosmetic reasons ? it is at the end an arm originated protocol so I dont
>>> see it as a being wrong to be named as such even though used by other
>>> archs...I have not really strong opinion on this...
>>
>> This is certainly not my call to make, but I have to admit that I
>> fully agree with the above.
>>
>> Usually we don't rename files that indicate a legacy platform name,
>> just because a new company/platform wants to make use of it.
>>
> 
> I agree.

Just to add a data point: renaming an ARM-named-but-not-ARM-specific file when
another architecture adopts it does have precedent. See the EFI stub/init, which
were renamed precisely to drop the misleading "arm" name once RISC-V reused
them:

2e0eb483c058 ("efi/libstub: Move arm-stub to a common file")
f30f242fb131 ("efi: Rename arm-init to efi-init common for all arch")

The justification there was the same as here — the code isn't actually
ARM-specific, so the ARM name is misleading once a second arch uses it.

That said, I agree it shouldn't be done purely for cosmetics; it makes sense
when it's paired with the real change (dropping the ARM dependency).

Thanks,
Michal