> -----Original Message-----
> From: Padhi, Beleswar <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 1:07 PM
> To: Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]>; Shenwei Wang
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>; Linus Walleij <[email protected]>; Bartosz
> Golaszewski <[email protected]>; Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>; Rob Herring
> <[email protected]>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley
> <[email protected]>; Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>; Frank Li
> <[email protected]>; Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>; Shuah Khan
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Pengutronix Kernel Team
> <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam <[email protected]>; Peng Fan
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-arm-
> [email protected]; dl-linux-imx <[email protected]>; Bartosz
> Golaszewski <[email protected]>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v13 3/4] gpio: rpmsg: add generic rpmsg GPIO driver
> Hi Mathieu,
>
> On 4/29/2026 11:03 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 10:53, Shenwei Wang <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]>
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 10:42 AM
> >>> To: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]>
> >>> Cc: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>; Padhi, Beleswar <[email protected]>;
> >>> Linus Walleij <[email protected]>; Bartosz Golaszewski
> >>> <[email protected]>; Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>; Rob Herring
> >>> <[email protected]>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Conor
> >>> Dooley <[email protected]>; Bjorn Andersson
> >>> <[email protected]>; Frank Li <[email protected]>; Sascha Hauer
> >>> <[email protected]>; Shuah Khan <[email protected]>;
> >>> linux- [email protected]; [email protected];
> >>> [email protected]; Pengutronix Kernel Team
> >>> <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam <[email protected]>; Peng
> >>> Fan <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> >>> [email protected]; [email protected];
> >>> [email protected]; dl-linux-imx <linux-
> >>> [email protected]>; Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
> >>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v13 3/4] gpio: rpmsg: add generic rpmsg
> >>> GPIO driver On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 03:24:59PM +0000, Shenwei Wang
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Andrew Lunn <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 3:49 PM
> >>>>> To: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Cc: Padhi, Beleswar <[email protected]>; Linus Walleij
> >>>>> <[email protected]>; Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>;
> >>>>> Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>;
> >>>>> Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley
> >>>>> <[email protected]>; Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>;
> >>>>> Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]>; Frank Li
> >>>>> <[email protected]>; Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>; Shuah
> >>>>> Khan <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> >>>>> linux- [email protected]; [email protected];
> >>>>> Pengutronix Kernel Team <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam
> >>>>> <[email protected]>; Peng Fan <[email protected]>;
> >>>>> [email protected]; linux- [email protected];
> >>>>> [email protected]; linux-arm- [email protected];
> >>>>> dl-linux-imx <[email protected]>; Bartosz Golaszewski
> >>>>> <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v13 3/4] gpio: rpmsg: add generic rpmsg
> >>>>> GPIO driver
> >>>>>>> struct virtio_gpio_response {
> >>>>>>> __u8 status;
> >>>>>>> __u8 value;
> >>>>>>> };
> >>>>>> It is the same message format. Please see the message definition
> >>>>> (GET_DIRECTION) below:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> + +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+
> >>>>>> + |0x00 |0x01 |0x02 |0x03 |0x04 |0x05|
> >>>>>> + | 1 | 2 |port |line | err | dir|
> >>>>>> + +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+
> >>>>> Sorry, but i don't see how two u8 vs six u8 are the same message format.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Some changes to the message format are necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> Virtio uses two communication channels (virtqueues): one for
> >>>> requests and
> >>> replies, and a second one for events.
> >>>> In contrast, rpmsg provides only a single communication channel, so
> >>>> a type field is required to distinguish between different kinds of
> >>>> messages.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since rpmsg replies and events share the same message format, an
> >>>> additional
> >>> line is introduced to handle both cases.
> >>>> Finally, rpmsg supports multiple GPIO controllers, so a port field
> >>>> is added to
> >>> uniquely identify the target controller.
> >>>
> >>> I have commented on this before - RPMSG is already providing
> >>> multiplexing capability by way of endpoints. There is no need for a
> >>> port field. One endpoint, one GPIO controller.
> >>>
> >> You still need a way to let the remote side know which port the
> >> endpoint maps to, either by embedding the port information in the
> >> message (the current way), or by sending it separately.
> >>
> > An endpoint is created with every namespace request. There should be
> > one namespace request for every GPIO controller, which yields a unique
> > endpoint for each controller and eliminates the need for an extra
> > field to identify them.
>
>
> Right, but this can still be done by just having one namespace request.
> We can create new endpoints bound to an existing namespace/channel by
> invoking rpmsg_create_ept(). This is what I suggested here too:
> https://lore.kernel/
> .org%2Fall%2F29485742-6e49-482e-b73d-
> 228295daaeec%40ti.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cshenwei.wang%40nxp.com%7
> Caba62d7a899849fd57f708dea61a1d8b%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c3016
> 35%7C0%7C0%7C639130828278097401%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFb
> XB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpb
> CIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NLLYQ0NZCnYKLT%2F2OMDZE
> SKgC%2Fme3FoUNqqEGBOIY2k%3D&reserved=0
>
> My mental model looks like this for the complete picture:
>
> 1. namespace/channel#1 = rpmsg-io
> a. ept1 -> gpio-controller@1
> b. ept2 -> gpio-controller@2
>
> 2. namespace/channel#2 = rpmsg-i2c
> a. ept1 -> i2c@1
> b. ept2 -> i2c@2
> c. ept3 -> i2c@3
>
The GPIO nodes will act as providers.
Mapping the port index into the service name is a possible solution, but I
don't believe it's better than
embedding that information in the message. A stateless approach feels simpler
and cleaner overall.
Thanks,
Shenwei
> etc...
>
> This way device groups are isolated with each channel/namespace, and instances
> within each device groups are also respected with specific endpoints.
>
> Thanks,
> Beleswar
