On Mon, 11 May 2026 at 12:18, Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Arnaud, Beleswar, Andrew and I are all advocating for one endpoint per > > GPIO controller. The remaining issue it about the best way to work > > out source and destination addresses between Linux and the remote > > processor. I'm running out of time for today but I'll return to this > > thread with a final analysis by the end of the week. > > How many of the participants here will be in Minneapolis next week for > the Embedded Linux Conference? There is even a talk about this: > > https://osselcna2026.sched.com/event/2JQpx/building-virtual-drivers-with-rpmsg-key-design-principles-challenges-trade-offs-beleswar-prasad-padhi-texas-instruments?iframe=yes&w=100%&sidebar=yes&bg=no > > Maybe we can get together and decide on the final design after the > session. >
I will not be in Minneapolis next week. At this point I think things are converging into 2 main takeaways: 1) A serious refactoring of the protocol to include only what is available in the virtio-gpio specification [1]. 2) The specification of GPIO controller number in an extension of the namespace announcement [2]. Shenwei proposed embedding the GPIO controller number in the endpoint's source address [3], something I'm ambivalent about and still have to look into. I also have to read Tanmay's latest comments. I'm hoping to be done with all that by the end of the week. With the above (1) and (2), a new patchset will be required to reset this thread. Thanks, Mathieu [1]. https://lwn.net/ml/all/afjyH5JT0JS2j0L5@p14s/ [2]. https://lwn.net/ml/all/afzIABSh1xtMEGbf%40p14s/ [3]. https://lwn.net/ml/all/paxpr04mb9185bfa6e7375fad0b15b02189...@paxpr04mb9185.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com/ > Andrew
