RE: 回复: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 01/17] mailbox: add i.MX95 Messaging Unit (MU) driver

[Peng Fan]

> 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 <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.