> Subject: Re: 回复: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] mailbox: add i.MX95 > Messaging Unit (MU) driver > > On 1/7/25 6:01 AM, Peng Fan wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 09:39:57PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 1/6/25 6:27 AM, Alice Guo (OSS) wrote: > >>>> 主题: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] mailbox: add i.MX95 Messaging > Unit > >>>> (MU) driver > >>>> > >>>> Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking > >>>> links or opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message > >>>> using the 'Report this email' button > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 1/3/25 7:45 AM, Alice Guo wrote: > >>>>> From: Peng Fan <[email protected]> > >>>>> > >>>>> i.MX95 Messaging Unit (MU) enables 2 processors on a chip to > >>>>> communicate and coordinate by passing messages (e.g. frame > >>>>> information, event notices and requests) through the MU > interface. > >>>>> This patch provides a driver for i.MX95 MU using the common > >>>>> mailbox framework. Currently, SCMI exchanges on i.MX95 uses a > >>>>> mailbox transport with SMT format, and the hardware used is > this MU. > >>>> Is this ported from Linux ? If so, as of which mainline Linux kernel > commit ? > >>> > >>> Yes, u-boot/drivers/mailbox/imx-mailbox.c is ported v6.12.8 Linux. > >> > >> Please add that information into the commit message, including the > >> kernel version and Linux commit ID , in case this driver needs to be > updated. > >> > >>>> Can you add older iMX SoC support while adding this driver ? It > >>>> seems > >>>> imx6..imx95 MU IP look very similar. > >>> > >>> This patch-set is only for i.MX95. I can add the older iMX SoC > support in the future. > >> Maybe you could split off addition of the MU driver into separate > >> series and do it for all the SoCs right away instead ? > > > > Adding other SoCs support needs tests, but to tests other platforms, > > we need more work. We could not just put code here that not tested > for other SoCs. > If you are already porting the MU driver for Linux, there is a good > chance the support for other SoCs was already tested in Linux, so it > should be safe to port it over in full to U-Boot that way ?
I will leave this to Fabio to decide, I not prefer to porting untested code in U-boot, even that works in Linux. Thanks, Peng.
