Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:16:50 +0100 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |