From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] mailbox: Add generic mechanism for testing Mailbox Controllers Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:26:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20150813142614.GH8782@x1> References: <20150813091914.GB8782@x1> <20150813102335.GC8782@x1> <20150813110008.GD8782@x1> <20150813114005.GF8782@x1> <20150813130736.GG8782@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: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , kernel@stlinux.com, Devicetree List List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Lee Jones wro= te: > > > > Now just agree with me that mbox_request_chan() should fail on requ= est > > of a known bad configuration request and I can code all this up and > > re-submit. :D > > > You make me look like a jerk :( My problem is not with validation a= s > such. I see problem in the way you implement that makes validation > necessary. I'll explain step-by-step in the driver post. That wasn't the intention, don't be so sensitive. ;) --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog