Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2014 09:50:21 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCHv5 2/4] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox | From | Jassi Brar <> |
| |
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:41:00AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> Introduce common framework for client/protocol drivers and >> controller drivers of Inter-Processor-Communication (IPC). > > This looks pretty nice, though I do have a few *very* small nits beyond > those Arnd had. > >> + if (chan->cl->tx_block && chan->active_req) { >> + int ret; >> + init_completion(&chan->tx_complete); > > reinit_completion(). > >> + if (!cl->tx_tout) /* wait for ever */ >> + cl->tx_tout = msecs_to_jiffies(3600000); >> + else >> + cl->tx_tout = msecs_to_jiffies(cl->tx_tout); > > Is the default wait for ever the best timeout - I'm not sure it's best > from a defensiveness point of view. It should be fine either way, > it's just a matter of taste. > The client wants the call to be blocking. Out of 'zero', 'infinity' and some 'valid' delay, it makes better sense to have 'infinity' than zero or another value that might be valid for some platform. I assume 1hr to be 'infinity', though I am open to better suggestions. Maybe put a WARN() ?
>> + ret = chan->mbox->ops->startup(chan); >> + if (ret) { >> + pr_err("Unable to startup the chan\n"); > > Perhaps print the error codes? Might be helpful to users. > OK.
BTW, I have not converted Highbank's PL320 and OMAP's controller and client drivers. I believe Highbank's can't be converted to DT now and Suman would want to convert the OMAP himself.
Also, maybe mailbox patches could be upstreamed via, say, arm-soc tree?
Regards, Jassi
| |