Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: add bindings for samsung,exynos

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 09/12/2024 09:11, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Krzysztof!
> 
> On 12/9/24 7:52 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 05:41:35PM +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> Add bindings for the Samsung Exynos Mailbox Controller.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/mailbox/samsung,exynos.yaml      | 70 +++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Filename based on compatible, so:
>> google,gs101-acpm-mbox
>>
>> but then entire binding seems for different device, so you most likely
>> miss here actual Exynos devices.
>>
> 
> I need some guidance here, please. The mailbox controller can pass the
> mailbox messages either via its own data registers, or via SRAM (like it
> is used by the ACPM protocol).
> 
> I'm thinking of using the same driver for both cases, and differentiate
> between the two by compatible and `of_device_id.data`. Thus I propose to
> have a "google,gs101-acpm-mbox" compatible for the ACPM SRAM case and in
> the future we may add a "google,gs101-mbox" compatible for the messages
> passed via the controller's data register case.

Good that you pointed it out, I was indeed wondering why this is
"acpm-mbox", not "mbox in compatible.

This needs to be fixed - you cannot have two compatibles for the same
device.

> 
> Given this, I shall use the more generic name for the bindings, thus
> maybe "google,gs101-mbox.yaml"? But then exynos850 has the same
> controller, shouldn't we just use "samsung,exynos.yaml"?

If exynos850 has the same controller, then add it to the binding. Anyway
then use samsung,exynos850-mbox, because samsung,exynos is way too generic.



Best regards,
Krzysztof