On 12/21/2012 11:28 AM, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 18:40:07, Loic Pallardy wrote:

quoted

-	msg = mbox_read_reg(fifo->data);
-	msg |= ((mbox_msg_t) mbox_read_reg(fifo->cmd))<<  16;
+	msg->header = mbox_read_reg(fifo->data);
+	msg->header |= ((mbox_msg_t) mbox_read_reg(fifo->cmd))<<  16;

Now that struct mailbox_msg encapsulates the data, you can
get rid of the mbox_msg_t typedef completely. Having the data
as part of the mailbox_msg along with the functions with mbox_msg_t
as the return type just creates confusion IMHO.

OK I'll clean up mbox_msg_t typedef.

quoted

-	return msg;
+	return 0;
  }

Convert all return 0 functions to void?

[...]

Yes, agree I'll change the prototype.

quoted

+
+#define MAILBOX_FILL_HEADER_MSG(_msg, _header) \
+	MAILBOX_FILL_MSG(_msg, _header, NULL, 0);
+

I used these patches as part of the suspend-resume support for AM335x
which has the same mailbox IP as OMAP4. I used the MAILBOX_FILL_HEADER_MSG
helper and things work as expected.

Nice.

However, I found the 'header' part to be very confusing. Why not treat the
OMAP case as a special case of the new MAILBOX_FILL_MSG where the data size
is set to 1?

Yes it is another possibility. Changes are not big.
Omar, what's your view on this point?

Regards,
Loic

Regards,
Vaibhav