From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mailbox: Add support for ST's Mailbox IP Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:57:38 +0000 Message-ID: <20150319095738.GY3318@x1> References: <1425379283-1567-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1425379283-1567-4-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150318131226.GM3318@x1> <20150318152658.GO3318@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jassi Brar Cc: Jassi Brar , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , lkml , Devicetree List , kernel@stlinux.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Lee Jones wro= te: > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote: >=20 > >> >> > + mbox->irq =3D irq_create_mapping(mbin= st->irq_domain, > >> >> > + mbox->= rx_id); > >> >> > > >> >> simply assigning same IRQ to all controller DT nodes and using > >> >> IRQF_SHARED for the common handler, wouldn't work? > >> > > >> > I do have intentions to simplify this driver somewhat, but that = will > >> > take some time as it will require a great deal of consultation a= nd > >> > testing from the ST side. This is the current internal implemen= tation > >> > which is used in the wild and has been fully tested. If you'll = allow > >> > me to conduct my adaptions subsequently we can have full history= and a > >> > possible reversion plan if anything untoward take place i.e. I m= ess > >> > something up. > >> > > >> OK, but wouldn't that break the bindings of this driver when you > >> eventually do that? > > > > That's going to happen regardless, since these bindings are already= in > > use internally. Mainline (i.e. v4.0+) isn't going to be used in > > products for years to come, so we have a lot of time until any new > > bindings become ABI. > > > I thought time starts from upstream. It doesn't seem right to > knowingly introduce a binding that we are going to break in coming > weeks. For this reason, it needs ACK from some DT maintainer. Time starts from when binding comes out of active development mode and becomes ABI. I can issue a statement in the binding document to say that is in a state of flux if that makes you feel better about it. Development bindings change all the time. > >> >> > + * struct sti_mbox_msg - sti mailbox message description > >> >> > + * @dsize: data payload size > >> >> > + * @pdata: message data payload > >> >> > + */ > >> >> > +struct sti_mbox_msg { > >> >> > + u32 dsize; > >> >> > + u8 *pdata; > >> >> > +}; > >> >> > > >> >> There isn't any client driver in this patchset to tell exactly,= but it > >> >> seems the header could be split into one shared between mailbox > >> >> clients and provider and another internal to client/provider ? > >> > > >> > I believe only the above will be required by the client. Seems = silly > >> > to create a client specific header just for that, don't you thin= k? > >> > > >> Do you mean to have copies of the structure in controller and clie= nt driver? :O > > > > I do not. I planned on sharing the main header with with client > > also. > > > > But I guess by your reaction you suggest having a teeny client head= er > > as the best way forward then. > > > Yes, please. Roger red leader. > And also no header that's included by exactly one file. So you also want me to drag in all of the controller structs into the driver? --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog