Re: [GIT PULL] mailbox driver framework for v3.10 merge window

[Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>]

Tan,

On 06/13/2013 06:01 AM, LF.Tan wrote:
> Hi
> I would like to add a new mailbox driver with this mailbox framework. 
> May I know this mailbox framework will available in kernel v3.10 or it
> is pushed to v3.11?
> 
> Thanks.

This framework is dropped from v3.10 as this is being reworked and will
be replaced with a different one that adds atomic context and tx
callback support [1]. Jassi is working on a newer patchset currently for
this, but you should be able to get started using [1].

regards
Suman

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136782509309470&w=2

> 
> On Friday 03 May 2013 15:39:42 Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de
> <mailto:a...@arndb.de>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 02 May 2013 17:09:07 Suman Anna wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I do not know how much of an impact it is for the ST driver as the
>> >> series adds the driver, and would have to wait until the RFC is sorted
>> >> out otherwise.
>> >
>> > I think I'd prefer to drop the branch from the 3.10 queue then
>> > and let you all work out a common approach for 3.11. Olof, any
>> > other input?
>> 
>> This will block all refactoring of the PRCMU driver, which Loic
>> is working on, and also Ulf Hansson's clock driver. It is basically
>> the key to breaking that driver apart and distributing it out into
>> the proper subsystems. Loic has a big patch series for that
>> for next merge window which will then have to be postponed,
>> or queued on top of the mailbox work when finished.
>> 
>> But maybe it's the right thing to do if the subsystem needs more
>> work? I have no clear opinion on this, Loic, Ulf?
> 
>> I think we can queue them together. I'm certainly fine with the
>> mailbox subsystem getting merged through both the mfd and arm-soc
>> trees to avoid conflicts.
> 
>>     Arnd