From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "tushar.khandelwal@arm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mailbox: arm_mhuv2: add device tree binding documentation Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:22:37 +0100 Message-ID: <55dcfe02-8c2c-4f9a-b467-bcac0d6b0fd7@arm.com> References: <20190717192616.1731-1-tushar.khandelwal@arm.com> <20190717192616.1731-2-tushar.khandelwal@arm.com> <20190814100518.GA21898@e107155-lin> <20190814165133.GA8346@e107155-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190814165133.GA8346@e107155-lin> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sudeep Holla , Jassi Brar Cc: Morten Borup Petersen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "tushar.2nov@gmail.com" , "nd@arm.com" , Morten Borup Petersen , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Devicetree List List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 14/08/2019 17:51, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:52:25AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:05 AM Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:36:56AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As mentioned in the response to your initial comment, the driver does >>>>>>> not currently support mixing protocols. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for acknowledging that limitation. But lets also address it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We are hesitant to dedicate time to developing mixing protocols given >>>>> that we don't have any current usecase nor any current platform which >>>>> would support this. >>>>> >>>> Can you please share the client code against which you tested this driver? >>>> From my past experience, I realise it is much more efficient to tidyup >>>> the code myself, than endlessly trying to explain the benefits. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the patience and offer. >>> >> Ok, but the offer is to Morten for MHUv2 driver. >> >>> Can we try the same with MHUv1 and SCMI >>> upstream driver. >>> >> MHUv1 driver is fine as it is. >> I did try my best to keep you from messing the SCMI driver, without success >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/8/7/924 > > I disagree, you haven't told me how to address the usecase which I mentioned > with the abstraction/multiplexer on top of MHU as you have been suggesting. > > I am sure MHUv2 will have the same usecase. > MHUv2 driver is addressing existing (door-bell) use case as well as new (multi-word) use case using new IP features. > -- > Regards, > Sudeep >