lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox


On 16/07/14 11:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 10:40:19 Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> +
>>> +Required property:
>>> +- mbox: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifier.
>>> +
>>> +- mbox-names: List of identifier strings for each mailbox channel
>>> + required by the client.
>>> +
>>
>> IMO the mailbox names are more associated with the controller channels/
>> mailbox rather than the clients using it. Does it make sense to move
>> this under controller. It also avoid each client replicating the names.
>
> I think it would be best to just make the mbox-names property optional,
> like we have for other subsystems.
>

OK that makes sense.

> Doing it in the mbox-controller makes no sense at all, because the
> mbox controller has (or should have) no idea what the attached devices are.
>

Agreed if these mbox-names are more specific to attached devices and that
was my initial understanding too. But I got confused when I saw something
like below in the patch[1]

+ mhu: mhu0@2b1f0000 {
+ #mbox-cells = <1>;
+ compatible = "fujitsu,mhu";
+ reg = <0 0x2B1F0000 0x1000>;
+ interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP Non-Sec */
+ <0 35 4>, /* HP Non-Sec */
+ <0 37 4>; /* Secure */
+ };
+
+ mhu_client: scb@0 {
+ compatible = "fujitsu,scb";
+ mbox = <&mhu 1>;
+ mbox-names = "HP_NonSec";
+ };

Here the name used is more controller specific.

Regards,
Sudeep

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg346991.html



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-16 14:01    [W:0.114 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site