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

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

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