Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

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