Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: soc: qcom,smsm: Allow specifying mboxes instead of qcom,ipc

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof
> 
> Ack, sounds good.
> 
> Maybe also from you, any opinion between these two binding styles?
> 
> So first using index of mboxes for the numbering, where for the known
> usages the first element (and sometimes the 3rd - ipc-2) are empty <>.
> 
> The second variant is using mbox-names to get the correct channel-mbox
> mapping.
> 
> -               qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>;
> -               qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>;
> -               qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>;
> +               mboxes = <0>, <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>;
> 
> vs.
> 
> -               qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>;
> -               qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>;
> -               qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>;
> +               mboxes = <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>;
> +               mbox-names = "ipc-1", "ipc-2", "ipc-3";

Sorry, don't get, ipc-1 is the first mailbox, so why would there be <0>
in first case? Anyway, the question is if you need to know that some
mailbox is missing. But then it is weird to name them "ipc-1" etc.

Best regards,
Krzysztof