> -----Original Message----- > From: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:36 AM > To: Shenwei Wang <[email protected]>; Bjorn Andersson > <[email protected]> > Cc: Mathieu Poirier <[email protected]>; Rob Herring > <[email protected]>; Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Conor Dooley > <[email protected]>; Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; Sascha Hauer > <[email protected]>; Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>; Bartosz > Golaszewski <[email protected]>; Pengutronix Kernel Team > <[email protected]>; Fabio Estevam <[email protected]>; Peng Fan > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-arm- > [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected]; dl-linux-imx <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] docs: staging: gpio-rpmsg: gpio over rpmsg > bus > Hi Shenwei, > > thanks for your patch! > > Also, a big thanks for working on improving the standardization of rpmsg so we > can get some order here. This is very important work. > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2025 at 9:34 PM Shenwei Wang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +- **Major**: Major version number. > > + > > +- **Minor**: Minor version number. > > I'm not contesting these if they come from similar fields in other rpmsg > devices. > > What I'm thinking is that the driver will eventually have to quirk around > bugs in > the responding rpmsg CPU, and there will be bugs. This can end up with this > situation: > > major,minor = (1,2) NXP implementation, no bug major,minor = (1,2) Sharp > implementation, no bug major,minor = (1,2) Sony implementation, ooops this has > a bug > > What is the driver going to do here to work around that bug? > > The scheme kind of suppose that all vendors use the same codebase and they > don't. > > I would rather have: > > **Vendor**: Vendor ID number (such as the PCI or USB ID) > > **Version**: Vendor-specific version number (such as SW release) > > This will make it possible to identify buggy firmware and apply quirks. > > My apologies if the rpmsg community has already thought about this. > > Bjorns input would be appreciated! >
Hi Linus, Thank you very much for the review and suggestions. Would it be feasible to use the reserved field for this purpose? This approach would maintain compatibility with the existing system. +-----+------+------+-----+-----+------------+-----+-----+--------+ |0x00 |0x01 |0x02 |0x03 |0x04 |0x05..0x09 |0x0A |0x0B |0x0C~0x0D| |cate |major |minor |type |cmd |reserved[5] |line |port | data | +-----+------+------+-----+-----+------------+-----+-----+--------+ We could allocate four bytes from the reserved field to store the VID:PID combinations. Thanks, Shenwei > Yours, > Linus Walleij
