From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C081BC55179 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:13:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550C8206D9 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:13:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1604589195; bh=lCznpMvGuq3h8K0R23fx1rzZpVDjaxHiG5s2GHtPbmM=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=hE3zgmiO0wZvd4Sv9fAIalDXaVPIXj8qh2gxurccd8N9A9wAVymTNgAuZFTSZpMLv 76Jf0Vize3pRYZjo8Ej5ZLg3JXNloYfIxhRVpWX9OBStXC3aOEismrhOZiNqQGungY 42yl39VMVJkY5FUip3e2sMGL4+4sToHUp9ys6mAw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730977AbgKEPNO (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:13:14 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57016 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730616AbgKEPNO (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2020 10:13:14 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f46.google.com (mail-ot1-f46.google.com [209.85.210.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8625B2078E; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:13:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1604589193; bh=lCznpMvGuq3h8K0R23fx1rzZpVDjaxHiG5s2GHtPbmM=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=c6YMQgvejb88vHW01/sIVtjs9HZ5lHYub85TynOeLRl0Wo5IJlC1HmtmqC8kUIxcv ulmiA3pc7C/7YrM8RFJ0SwekCMEXXh8riPXoeW1sESsjP81GOSu70tCgUBSP13X7oA sMZ/5xZ9EgmZewhqjU5B83w1rW5L4Ew04dmiv5Vs= Received: by mail-ot1-f46.google.com with SMTP id k3so1697721otp.12; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:13:13 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325RmU2IBhdhxsaA37A4ae1EDThZu2lAAMXui1NQsyorlaVcSoD 5ETp9c7ueYFTcvLIDhszSv4/SYmHDJdKbo5E+Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzv6qS1ty1wq4pONs+V7We2Eazy4XNYKljHi1aYqFquff+U7IV6X0TUmTL85ncAfvDnA0BqYOvwP9FO06EUmDk= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:5e14:: with SMTP id d20mr1870443oti.107.1604589192723; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:13:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201029195913.5927-1-james.quinlan@broadcom.com> <20201029195913.5927-2-james.quinlan@broadcom.com> <20201104215050.GA4180546@bogus> In-Reply-To: From: Rob Herring Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 09:13:00 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: Add bindings for BrcmSTB SCMI mailbox driver To: Jim Quinlan Cc: Sudeep Holla , "maintainer:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE" , Florian Fainelli , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM7XXX ARM ARCHITECTURE" , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:04 PM Jim Quinlan wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:50 PM Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 03:59:06PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > > > Bindings are added. Only one interrupt is needed because > > > we do not yet employ the SCMI p2a channel. > > > > I still don't understand what this is. To repeat from v1: I thought SCMI > > was a mailbox consumer, not provider? > > Hi Rob, > > I'm not sure where I am implying that SCMI is a mailbox provider? > Should I not mention "SCMI" in the subject line? > > This is just a mailbox driver, "consumed" by SCMI. Our SCMI DT node > looks like this: > > brcm_scmi_mailbox: brcm_scmi_mailbox@0 { > #mbox-cells = <1>; > compatible = "brcm,brcmstb-mbox"; > }; > > brcm_scmi@0 { > compatible = "arm,scmi"; > mboxes = <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 0>;; > mbox-names = "tx"; > shmem = <&NWMBOX>; > /* ... */ > }; Okay, that makes more sense. Though it seems like this is just adding a pointless level of indirection to turn an interrupt into a mailbox. There's nothing more to 'the mailbox' is there? So why not either allow SCMI to have an interrupt directly or have a generic irq mailbox driver? Rob