# Re: \[PATCH\] Revert "mailbox/pcc: support mailbox management of the shared buffer"

- From: Jassi Brar \<jassisinghbrar@gmail.com\>
- Date: 2025-09-30 00:19:38 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/09/3235589
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2025/09/3233128/t.md

```text
On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 12:11 PM Adam Young
[ref] wrote:
>
> I posted a patch that addresses a few of these issues.  Here is a top
> level description of the isse
>
>
> The correct way to use the mailbox API would be to allocate a buffer for
> the message,write the message to that buffer, and pass it in to
> mbox_send_message.  The abstraction is designed to then provide
> sequential access to the shared resource in order to send the messages
> in order.  The existing PCC Mailbox implementation violated this
> abstraction.  It requires each individual driver re-implement all of the
> sequential ordering to access the shared buffer.
>
> Why? Because they are all type 2 drivers, and the shared buffer is
> 64bits in length:  32bits for signature, 16 bits for command, 16 bits
> for status.  It would be execessive to kmalloc a buffer of this size.
>
> This shows the shortcoming of the mailbox API.  The mailbox API assumes
> that there is a large enough buffer passed in to only provide a void *
> pointer to the message.  Since the value is small enough to fit into a
> single register, it the mailbox abstraction could provide an
> implementation that stored a union of a void * and word.
>
Mailbox api does not make assumptions about the format of message
hence it simply asks for void*.
Probably I don't understand your requirement, but why can't you pass the pointer
to the 'word' you want to use otherwise?

-jassi
```