From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:46:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V2 2/4] dt-bindings: arm: fsl: add mu binding doc In-Reply-To: <20180620194310.GA28983@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1529239789-26849-1-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> <1529239789-26849-3-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> <20180620194310.GA28983@rob-hp-laptop> Message-ID: <20180621074641.sqqvudxebt3hd43m@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:43:10PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 08:49:47PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > The Messaging Unit module enables two processors within > > the SoC to communicate and coordinate by passing messages > > (e.g. data, status and control) through the MU interface. > > > > Cc: Shawn Guo > > Cc: Sascha Hauer > > Cc: Fabio Estevam > > Cc: Rob Herring > > Cc: Mark Rutland > > Cc: devicetree at vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng > > --- > > v1->v2: > > * typo fixes > > * remove status property > > * remove imx6&7 compatible string which may be added later for > > the generic mailbox binding > > > > Note: Because MU used by SCU is not implemented as a mailbox driver, > > Instead, they're provided in library calls to gain higher performance. > > Using a binding doesn't mean you have to use an OS's subsystem. > > What needs higher performance? What's the performance difference? Why > can't the mailbox framework be improved? >>From what I see the performance is improved by polling the interrupt registers rather than using interrupts. I see no reason though why this can't be implemented with the mailbox framework as is. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |