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

On 16/07/14 12:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:16:50 Sudeep Holla wrote:

quoted

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.

The name is definitely specific to the client, not the master. The

IIUC this controller has 3 channels: Secure, High and Low Priority Non Secure.
I assumed the name is derived from that rather than what the client is
using it for, hence the confusion. That might be fine but I am more interested
what will be the name if another client uses the same channel in the above
example.

Regards,
Sudeep

string "HP_NonSec" should be required in the binding for the "fujitsu,scb"
device here, and the scb driver should pass that hardcoded string
to the mailbox API to ask for a channel.

	Arnd

--
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