From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964783AbcBIMcR (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:32:17 -0500 Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:49479 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751874AbcBIMcQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:32:16 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt: mailbox: Add TI Message Manager To: Jassi Brar , Nishanth Menon References: <1454690044-2560-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1454690044-2560-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> CC: Devicetree List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Franklin S Cooper Jr , Santosh Shilimkar , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" From: Nishanth Menon X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56B9DC30.5040806@ti.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:31:44 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/08/2016 10:14 PM, Jassi Brar wrote: Thanks for the review. > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> + >> + msgmgr: msgmgr@02a00000 { >> + compatible = "ti,k2g-message-manager", "ti,message-manager"; >> + #mbox-cells = <1>; >> + reg-names = "queue_proxy_region", "queue_state_debug_region"; >> + reg = <0x02a00000 0x400000>, <0x028c3400 0x400>; >> + >> + msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx_prio0: pmmc_tx_prio0 { >> + ti,queue-id = <0>; >> + ti,proxy-id = <0>; >> + }; >> + >> + msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx: pmmc_rx { >> + ti,queue-id = <5>; >> + ti,proxy-id = <2>; >> + interrupt-names = "rx"; >> + interrupts = ; >> + }; >> + }; >> + > I think we should get rid of consumer specifics from the provider node... If I get rid of the consumer nodes, how do you propose I describe the rx queue interrupt(s) in the msmgr dt node (Every Rx queue will have it's own interrupt - and it cannot be reverse computed from queue ID, proxy ID)? >> +... >> + pmmc { >> + ... >> + mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; >> + mboxes = <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx> >> + <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx>; >> + ... >> + }; >> > ... and have consumers like > pmmc { > ... > mbox-names = "tx", "rx"; > mboxes = <&msgmgr 0 0> > <&msgmgr 5 2>; > }; > > I leave the IRQ for you to decide how to specify - a 'dummy' or > 'valid' always provided as last cell in mboxes or some other way. > (I'll review other patches in detail later) What do we do with the issues that Suman pointed out in the mailbox framework itself? Could you respond to that thread[1] as well? [1] http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=145496308418123&w=2 -- Regards, Nishanth Menon