lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] mailbox: Add support for ST's Mailbox IP
    On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
    > > On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote:
    > >
    > >> > +
    > >> > + if ((!data) || (!sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox)))
    > >> >
    > >> nit: too much protection.
    > >
    > > What makes you think that?
    > >
    > Usually we write
    > if (!data || !sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox))

    Ah, the parentheses. Yes, I agree. Thanks for clarifying.

    > >> > + mbox->irq = irq_create_mapping(mbinst->irq_domain,
    > >> > + mbox->rx_id);
    > >> >
    > >> simply assigning same IRQ to all controller DT nodes and using
    > >> IRQF_SHARED for the common handler, wouldn't work?
    > >
    > > I do have intentions to simplify this driver somewhat, but that will
    > > take some time as it will require a great deal of consultation and
    > > testing from the ST side. This is the current internal implementation
    > > which is used in the wild and has been fully tested. If you'll allow
    > > me to conduct my adaptions subsequently we can have full history and a
    > > possible reversion plan if anything untoward take place i.e. I mess
    > > something up.
    > >
    > OK, but wouldn't that break the bindings of this driver when you
    > eventually do that?

    That's going to happen regardless, since these bindings are already in
    use internally. Mainline (i.e. v4.0+) isn't going to be used in
    products for years to come, so we have a lot of time until any new
    bindings become ABI.

    > >> > + * struct sti_mbox_msg - sti mailbox message description
    > >> > + * @dsize: data payload size
    > >> > + * @pdata: message data payload
    > >> > + */
    > >> > +struct sti_mbox_msg {
    > >> > + u32 dsize;
    > >> > + u8 *pdata;
    > >> > +};
    > >> >
    > >> There isn't any client driver in this patchset to tell exactly, but it
    > >> seems the header could be split into one shared between mailbox
    > >> clients and provider and another internal to client/provider ?
    > >
    > > I believe only the above will be required by the client. Seems silly
    > > to create a client specific header just for that, don't you think?
    > >
    > Do you mean to have copies of the structure in controller and client driver? :O

    I do not. I planned on sharing the main header with with client
    also.

    But I guess by your reaction you suggest having a teeny client header
    as the best way forward then.

    --
    Lee Jones
    Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
    Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
    Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-03-18 16:41    [W:8.391 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site