From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966060AbcCQAaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:30:19 -0400 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:35040 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932684AbcCQAaR (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:30:17 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] mailbox: Introduce TI message manager driver To: Jassi Brar References: <1456525452-30638-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1456525452-30638-3-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <56D987FF.1040607@ti.com> <56DDD41E.2050409@ti.com> CC: Devicetree List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Santosh Shilimkar , Franklin S Cooper Jr From: Nishanth Menon X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56E9FA7D.9050801@ti.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:29:49 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jassi, On 03/16/2016 12:16 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: [...] >> Alright, i will drop this check since it is causing a lot more >> confusion >> > It's confusing because you check ti_msgmgr_queue_get_num_messages() > also in ti_msgmgr_last_tx_done() which doesn't make sense because the > former accounts for messages from other senders also (as you say there > could be multiple senders). True -> I will drop it for now. I will see if the case I was trying to protect is actually possible to be hit in the first place. And if proven to be required, I will introduce it back with a better explanation and the usecase where this is needed. >> that that is worth. we can introduce it when we finally do >> hit an issue eventually with multiple processors trying to transmit on >> the same queue manager. that is not a concern at the very immediate >> time, so we should be good to drop. >> >> please let me know if you are ok with this. >> > I am ok with whatever you assert is needed for your platform. I just > point out what I think are inconsistencies in your assumptions. I'll > pick the next revision however it is. Thanks for your patience and guidance with this series. I have tried to incorporate all the alignment we have had on this thread as part of V3[1] of the series. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=145817434531691&w=2 -- Regards, Nishanth Menon