From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:32:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20190830093224.GB31297@bogus> References: <1567004515-3567-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com> <1567004515-3567-2-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jassi Brar Cc: Peng Fan , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "andre.przywara@arm.com" , "f.fainelli@gmail.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , dl-linux-imx , Sudeep Holla List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:52:40AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:37 AM Peng Fan wrote: [...] > > > > If I get your point correctly, > > On UP, both could not be active. On SMP, tx/rx could be both active, anyway > > this depends on secure firmware and Linux firmware design. > > > > Do you have any suggestions about arm,func-ids here? > > > I was thinking if this is just an instruction, why can't each channel > be represented as a controller, i.e, have exactly one func-id per > controller node. Define as many controllers as you need channels ? > I might have missed to follow this, but what's the advantage of doing so ? Which can't single controller instance deal with all the channels ? -- Regards, Sudeep