Subject: [PATCH V3 0/5] firmware: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol driver

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Hilman)
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:31:03 -0700

Nishanth Menon <[email-masked]> writes:

> On 09/07/2016 01:55 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Nishanth Menon <[email-masked]> writes:
>
> [...] full mail thread in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747
>
>>> Overall architecture is very similar to SCPI[4] as follows:
>>
>> Dumb Q: I'm curious about the limitations in SCPI that were found that
>> made TI decided to implement its own version.

[...]

> Long story short, investigation was done into what SCPI was providing
> (TI internal ofcourse) and SCPI did not fit our SoC generation needs -

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  Very helpful.

To be clear, I'm not a proponent of always using ARM "standards"
(especially when it's not exactly clear if it's a standard or a Juno
thing) but I'm seeing several SoCs come out with SCPI derivatives, or
old ARM versions etc., so was just curious about the decision making
process.

Thanks for sharing,

Kevin