Re: [PATCHv7 2/5] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

[Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>]

On 18 June 2014 22:33, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote:
> Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> On 18 June 2014 05:57, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Introduce common framework for client/protocol drivers and
>>>> controller drivers of Inter-Processor-Communication (IPC).
>>>>
>>>> Client driver developers should have a look at
>>>>  include/linux/mailbox_client.h to understand the part of
>>>> the API exposed to client drivers.
>>>> Similarly controller driver developers should have a look
>>>> at include/linux/mailbox_controller.h
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> This series is shaping up nicely.  The one thing I think it would
>>> benefit from, being a new common framework is something under
>>> Documentation giving a brief overview, but more importantly some
>>> example code snippets of a mailbox client using the API, and maybe an
>>> example usage of the controller API as well.
>>>
>>> Not only will that guide developers who want to use/implement this API
>>> on their platforms, it will also aid reviewers.
>>>
>> I have been trying to get it upstream for quite some time now because
>> my platform depends upon it. I am planning to submit my platform
>> support which should have a client and controller side of the mailbox
>> API.
>
> Having a reference implementation is great, but I don't think that
> removes the need for a bit of Documentation when introducing a new
> framework.
>
> It's pretty common to see new IPC mechanisms posted and being able to
> point somone to this framework and something under Documentation/* would
> be a great help in getting more users of the framework.
>
Of course. I didn't mean I won't add Documentation.

>> Though I am told the API (until v4 at least) supported usecases for 5
>> different platforms.
>
> That's great.
>
> I sure would like to see some more Reviewed-by tags from those folks to
> confirm that those starting to use it think it's on the right track.
>
The upstreaming attempts have been going on for months now, and via
non-public interactions with developers I understand it last worked
before the revision mandating DT support and ipc->mailbox symbol
renaming. So basic working should still remain the same.
   Suman(TI), Loic(ST), Girish(Samsung), Ashwin (PCC+ACPI).... guys,
any word for v7?

LFTan(Intel) and Craig(Broadcom) seem unresponsive now, unfortunately :(

Thanks
-Jassi