Re: [PATCHv3 2/8] mailbox/omap: add support for parsing dt devices

[Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>]

Hi Benoit,

> On 08/08/2013 17:44, Suman Anna wrote:
>> On 08/08/2013 09:34 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Suman Anna wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/07/2013 12:41 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Suman Anna wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kumar,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Logic has been added to the OMAP2+ mailbox code to
>>>>>>>> parse the mailbox dt nodes and construct the different
>>>>>>>> mailboxes associated with the instance. The design is
>>>>>>>> based on gathering the same information that was being
>>>>>>>> passed previously through the platform data, except for
>>>>>>>> the interrupt type configuration information.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@ti.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt   |  43 +++++++
>>>>>>>> drivers/mailbox/mailbox-omap2.c                    | 130
>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>> create mode 100644
>>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git
>>>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt
>>>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt
>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>> index 0000000..8ffb08a
>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/omap-mailbox.txt
>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
>>>>>>>> +OMAP2+ Mailbox Driver
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +Required properties:
>>>>>>>> +- compatible:        Should be one of the following,
>>>>>>>> +                "ti,omap2-mailbox" for
>>>>>>>> +                OMAP2420, OMAP2430, OMAP3430, OMAP3630 SoCs
>>>>>>>> +                "ti,omap4-mailbox" for
>>>>>>>> +                OMAP44xx, OMAP54xx, AM33xx, AM43xx, DRA7xx SoCs
>>>>>>>> +- reg:            Contains the mailbox register address range
>>>>>>>> (base address
>>>>>>>> +            and length)
>>>>>>>> +- interrupts:         Contains the interrupt information for
>>>>>>>> the mailbox
>>>>>>>> +            device. The format is dependent on which interrupt
>>>>>>>> +            controller the OMAP device uses
>>>>>>>> +- ti,hwmods:        Name of the hwmod associated with the mailbox
>>>>>>>> +- ti,mbox-num-users:    Number of targets (processor devices)
>>>>>>>> that the mailbox device
>>>>>>>> +            can interrupt
>>>>>>>> +- ti,mbox-num-fifos:    Number of h/w fifos within the mailbox
>>>>>>>> device
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't "ti,mbox-num-users", "ti,mbox-num-fifos" this SoC specific,
>>>>>>> why do we need to encode in the device tree.  Can we not have a
>>>>>>> more SoC specific compatiable and encode such info in the driver
>>>>>>> as part of the .data field in of_device_id ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are IP design parameters for the number of h/w fifos and
>>>>>> interrupts
>>>>>> coming out of the IP block, with the functionality identical. This
>>>>>> information could not be read from any registers. Until OMAP5, we
>>>>>> always
>>>>>> had a single IP in the SoC and so these could been encoded in the
>>>>>> driver. But in DRA7xx, a new SoC, we have 13 mailboxes which have
>>>>>> differing number of these properties even though the functional IP
>>>>>> block
>>>>>> is same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, I see.  Since you've got examples of the same IP with different
>>>>> design params in a given SoC than this makes sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that true of ti,mbox-num-users?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is true of both "ti,mbox-num-users" and "ti,mbox-num-fifos".
>>>
>>> So I think it would be good to update the binding to convey that SoCs
>>> might have multiple mbox units w/different design pararms (maybe a
>>> short blurb as part of the intro).
>>
>> Sure will do. Will wait for Benoit also to come back on this series if I
>> need to address any further review comments.
> 
> I had the same concern than Kumar originally, so if nobody has anymore
> complain with this binding, that fine to me. At least for the DTS part.
> 

Thanks for the review. I will be re-spinning the series soon to address
comments from Kevin on a different patch in this series, so planning to
make some DT binding changes as well as part of that.

regards
Suman