lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/9] of: Add NVIDIA Tegra XUSB mailbox binding
On 08/18/2014 11:08 AM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> Add device-tree bindings for the Tegra XUSB mailbox which will be used
> for communication between the Tegra xHCI controller's firmware and the
> host processor.

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox.txt

> +NVIDIA Tegra XUSB mailbox
> +=========================
> +
> +The Tegra XUSB mailbox is used by the Tegra xHCI controller's firmware to
> +communicate requests to the host and PHY drivers.
> +
> +Required properties:
> +--------------------
> + - compatible: Should be "nvidia,tegra124-xusb-mbox".
> + - reg: Address and length of the XUSB FPCI registers.
> + - interrupts: XUSB mailbox interrupt.
> + - #mbox-cells: Should be 1. The specifier is the index of the mailbox to
> + reference. See <dt-bindings/mailbox/tegra-xusb-mailbox.h> for the list
> + of valid values.

Is there a common mailbox binding somewhere? I couldn't find one. While
the text above specifies the value for #mbox-cells, it doesn't specify
the details of what the property is used for (i.e. there's no
documentation of the consumer-side of this property, for parsing the
mboxes property). Typically, that would be part of a subsystem's common
binding document, and that document would be referenced here.

> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/mailbox/tegra-xusb-mailbox.h b/include/dt-bindings/mailbox/tegra-xusb-mailbox.h

> +#define TEGRA_XUSB_MBOX_CHAN_HOST 0
> +#define TEGRA_XUSB_MBOX_CHAN_PHY 1

I can't work out how these values relate to hardware at all. Are they in
fact properties of the particular firmware that's loaded into the XUSB
module? If so, I don't think the DT should contain these values at all.
I wonder if the individual MBOX_CMD_* values from patch 2 are any
better, although I think those are also defined by the firmware, not the
hardware?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-08-25 21:01    [W:0.217 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site