Re: [PATCHv3 2/9] ARM: OMAP2+: AM33XX: control: Add some control module registers and APIs

[Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com>]

On 08/12/2013 02:17 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> writes:
>
>> On 08/09/2013 12:11 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> [130808 09:23]:
>>>> On 08/08/2013 08:44 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>>>> Lets address the above better. I don't see a need of 8 functions
>>>>> exported doing one or 2 register writes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look M3 based handling is going to be there on future SOCs
>>>>> as well and this kind of handling of IPC is very short cited.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The idea here was to move all control module register accesses into
>>>> one file in planning of implementing a driver for the control module
>>>> itself in the future.
>>>>
>>>>> Probably we should have a separate driver for M3 in linux which
>>>>> can have all this local code instead of all these exports.
>>>>
>>>> The wkup_m3 code has been moved to a small driver found in patch 8
>>>> of this series, would it better to move this code there rather than
>>>> with the rest of the control module code?
>>>
>>> Please make everything you can into regular device drivers.
>>>
>>> We still have some dependencies to mach-omap2 code for PRCM
>>> for example, but we're trying to get all that to live in
>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> So for new pieces, let's not add further dependencies to
>>> complicate moving things to drivers.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>
>> Ok I will go ahead and pull the control module code that handles IPC
>> into the wkup_m3 driver.
>
> Any control module register access still needs to stay in control.c.
>
>> The wkup_m3.c file is still present in mach-omap2 as the right
>> location for it wasn't decided in the last RFC. Any thoughts on a good
>> location for it?
>
> I raised this also in earlier reviews, but don't remember the if it was
> answered...
>
> Why can't we handle the wkup_m3 using remoteproc/rpmsg instead of
> creating another little driver that duplicates communication with the
> M3.  Note also that the firmware load part would also be provided by
> remoteproc/rpmsg.

Looping Suman Anna who handled the IPC patches this patch set is based 
on top of...

For the wkup_m3, the mailbox isn't used in a traditional manner. It's 
only used with a dummy write to trigger an interrupt from the A8 to the 
M3 and then communication happens in IPC registers within the control 
module. No messages are actually sent through the mailbox in either 
direction so that's why it was done this way rather than bring in full 
support for the mailbox.

>
> Kevin
>