From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:29:49 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: Introduce TI message manager driver In-Reply-To: References: <1456525452-30638-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1456525452-30638-3-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <56D987FF.1040607@ti.com> <56DDD41E.2050409@ti.com> Message-ID: <56E9FA7D.9050801@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Jassi, On 03/16/2016 12:16 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: [...] >> Alright, i will drop this check since it is causing a lot more >> confusion >> > It's confusing because you check ti_msgmgr_queue_get_num_messages() > also in ti_msgmgr_last_tx_done() which doesn't make sense because the > former accounts for messages from other senders also (as you say there > could be multiple senders). True -> I will drop it for now. I will see if the case I was trying to protect is actually possible to be hit in the first place. And if proven to be required, I will introduce it back with a better explanation and the usecase where this is needed. >> that that is worth. we can introduce it when we finally do >> hit an issue eventually with multiple processors trying to transmit on >> the same queue manager. that is not a concern at the very immediate >> time, so we should be good to drop. >> >> please let me know if you are ok with this. >> > I am ok with whatever you assert is needed for your platform. I just > point out what I think are inconsistencies in your assumptions. I'll > pick the next revision however it is. Thanks for your patience and guidance with this series. I have tried to incorporate all the alignment we have had on this thread as part of V3[1] of the series. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=145817434531691&w=2 -- Regards, Nishanth Menon