Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] dt-bindings: mailbox: Add mboxes property for CMDQ secure driver

From: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To: "Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥)" <Jason-JH.Lin@mediatek.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Houlong Wei (魏厚龙)" <houlong.wei@mediatek.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Shawn Sung (宋孝謙)" <Shawn.Sung@mediatek.com>,
	"CK Hu (胡俊光)" <ck.hu@mediatek.com>,
	"conor+dt@kernel.org" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"robh@kernel.org" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org"
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"matthias.bgg@gmail.com" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"jassisinghbrar@gmail.com" <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	"angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com"
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] dt-bindings: mailbox: Add mboxes property for CMDQ secure driver
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:53:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240415-uncooked-gently-22743a504b30@spud> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f38f46c4d3c81f86bd33d3b78e15dd42bc0797c5.camel@mediatek.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2074 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:00:53AM +0000, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-04-09 at 18:52 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2024 at 04:15:51PM +0000, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 17:13 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 02:33:14PM +0000, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 15:52 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:31:06AM +0000, Jason-JH Lin (林睿祥)
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Conor,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks for the reviews.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2024-04-03 at 16:46 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 06:25:54PM +0800, Shawn Sung
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <jason-jh.lin@mediatek.com>

> > > > > > > > > +  mediatek,gce-events:
> > > > > > > > > +    description:
> > > > > > > > > +      The event id which is mapping to the specific
> > > > > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > > > event
> > > > > > > > > signal
> > > > > > > > > +      to gce. The event id is defined in the gce
> > > > > > > > > header
> > > > > > > > > +      include/dt-bindings/gce/<chip>-gce.h of each
> > > > > > > > > chips.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Missing any info here about when this should be used,
> > > > > > > > hint -
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > in the commit message.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-
> > > > > > > > > arrayi
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Why is the ID used by the CMDQ service not fixed for each
> > > > > > > > SoC?
> 
> Did I misunderstand the ID here?
> I thought we were talking about event IDs, but it looks like we are
> talking about mbox IDs.

We were talking about the event IDs FWIW.

Just send a new version with some actual explanations added (as we
discussed earlier on this thread) and we should be good here I think.

Cheers,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]