From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753310Ab2FFINe (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:13:34 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:57555 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751505Ab2FFINa (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:13:30 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6733"; a="198194203" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20120604171344.GA15837@plastictigers.com> References: <1338340310-4473-1-git-send-email-sdharia@codeaurora.org> <20120601001617.GA16311@plastictigers.com> <74993ac9d11db0db7080c0864daef397.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org> <20120604171344.GA15837@plastictigers.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 01:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] slimbus: Linux driver framework for SLIMbus. From: "Sagar Dharia" To: "Marc Butler" Cc: "Sagar Dharia" , davidb@codeaurora.org, bryanh@codeaurora.org, kheitke@codeaurora.org, gclemson@audience.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, rob@landley.net, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, rob.herring@calxeda.com, ohad@wizery.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, joerg.roedel@amd.com, trenn@suse.de, ak@linux.intel.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org Reply-To: sdharia@codeaurora.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I understand it is not a 1-to-1 mapping. However it *is* used as such: > > wbuf[2] = (u8)((segdist & 0xF00) >> 8) | (slc->prop.prot << 4); > > which results in NEXT_DEFINE_CHANNEL messages with an invalid TP > field. Yes, thanks for catching this. I will make changes to rectify this. > > Yes, my mistake. The driver wouldn't have to poll if there was another > callback. So I don't see how the completion mechanism is superior: it > forces a synchronous interface to asynchronous events, or the driver > developer has to work around it. The get_logical_address API itself doesn't take completion. Completion is part of slim_device structure so that the slim_device's driver can wait on it whenever it needs LA for the first time. (Framework signals completion on a slim_device when it gets enumerated) If callback is preferred, I will change it to callback. Regards- Sagar Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.