Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

On 16 July 2014 15:46, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wednesday 16 July 2014 10:40:19 Sudeep Holla wrote:

quoted

quoted

+
+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.

A very similar subsystem - DMAEngine also has 'dma-names' as a
required property.

If a client is assigned only 1 mbox in DT, we can do without
mbox-names. But I am not sure what to do if a client needs two or more
differently capable mboxes? Simply allocating in order of mbox request
doesn't seem very robust.

-jassi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html