On 5/5/2026 9:08 PM, Shah, Tanmay wrote:
[...]
If there are
multiple or multiple instances of same controller, than we need separate
channel name for that controller just like we would have separate device
on the Linux.
Why so? I think there is some confusion in the terminology:
GPIO controller = GPIO port (gpio@xyz) defined in the
Device tree = struct rpmsg_gpio_port in code
GPIO line = Individual lines within each GPIO port (max =
GPIOS_PER_PORT_DEFAULT) = struct rpmsg_gpio_line in code
Okay, I understand now. So, same gpio controller has multiple instances.
1. namespace/channel#1 = rpmsg-io
a. ept1 -> gpio-controller@1
b. ept2 -> gpio-controller@2
So, In that case above mentioned approach doesn't work.
Because, this approach is mapping endpoint to the gpio-controller.
And what is the problem with that?
From
linux's perspective, it needs to map rpmsg *channel* to the
gpio-controller not the endpoint.
Can you explain why it *needs* to?
To be more specific:
Linux: remote:
ch1: rpmsg-gpio.-1.1024 -> gpio-controller@1024
- gpio-line ept1
- gpio-line ept2 -> They all map to same callback_ept_1024.
- gpio-line ept3
This is a weird mapping. I am not suggesting one ept per gpio-line,
rather one per gpio-controller. You can refer my detailed proposal
here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
ch2: rpmsg-gpio.-1.1025 -> gpio-controller@1025
- gpio-line ept1
- gpio-line ept2 -> They all map to same callback_ept_1025.
- gpio-line ept3
[...]
On the remote side, we have to hardcode Which rpmsg controller is mapped
to which endpoint.
Not necessarily, we can exchange this info at runtime.
Thanks,
Beleswar
