From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:16:50 +0100 Message-ID: <53C65F22.20101@arm.com> References: <1405071167-14503-1-git-send-email-jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> <1405071325-14683-1-git-send-email-jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> <53C64883.2050709@arm.com> <5340858.B9CZUE8s0j@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5340858.B9CZUE8s0j@wuerfel> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Sudeep Holla , Jassi Brar , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "ks.giri-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org" , "ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org" , Mark Rutland , "robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , Pawel Moll , "courtney.cavin-/MT0OVThwyLZJqsBc5GL+g@public.gmane.org" , "mporter-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "slapdau-/E1597aS9LT0CCvOHzKKcA@public.gmane.org" , "lftan.linux-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org" , "loic.pallardy-qxv4g6HH51o@public.gmane.org" , "s-anna-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org" , "ashwin.chaugule-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "bjorn-UYDU3/A3LUY@public.gmane.org" , "patches-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "Mollie.Wu-l16TxrwUIHTQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 16/07/14 11:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2014 10:40:19 Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> + >>> +Required property: >>> +- mbox: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifier. >>> + >>> +- mbox-names: List of identifier strings for each mailbox channel >>> + required by the client. >>> + >> >> IMO the mailbox names are more associated with the controller channels/ >> mailbox rather than the clients using it. Does it make sense to move >> this under controller. It also avoid each client replicating the names. > > I think it would be best to just make the mbox-names property optional, > like we have for other subsystems. > OK that makes sense. > Doing it in the mbox-controller makes no sense at all, because the > mbox controller has (or should have) no idea what the attached devices are. > Agreed if these mbox-names are more specific to attached devices and that was my initial understanding too. But I got confused when I saw something like below in the patch[1] + mhu: mhu0@2b1f0000 { + #mbox-cells = <1>; + compatible = "fujitsu,mhu"; + reg = <0 0x2B1F0000 0x1000>; + interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP Non-Sec */ + <0 35 4>, /* HP Non-Sec */ + <0 37 4>; /* Secure */ + }; + + mhu_client: scb@0 { + compatible = "fujitsu,scb"; + mbox = <&mhu 1>; + mbox-names = "HP_NonSec"; + }; Here the name used is more controller specific. Regards, Sudeep [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg346991.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html