From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jassisinghbrar@gmail.com (Jassi Brar) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 10:43:54 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] mailbox: Add support for ST's Mailbox IP In-Reply-To: <20150318152658.GO3318@x1> References: <1425379283-1567-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1425379283-1567-4-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150318131226.GM3318@x1> <20150318152658.GO3318@x1> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote: >> >> > + mbox->irq = irq_create_mapping(mbinst->irq_domain, >> >> > + mbox->rx_id); >> >> > >> >> simply assigning same IRQ to all controller DT nodes and using >> >> IRQF_SHARED for the common handler, wouldn't work? >> > >> > I do have intentions to simplify this driver somewhat, but that will >> > take some time as it will require a great deal of consultation and >> > testing from the ST side. This is the current internal implementation >> > which is used in the wild and has been fully tested. If you'll allow >> > me to conduct my adaptions subsequently we can have full history and a >> > possible reversion plan if anything untoward take place i.e. I mess >> > something up. >> > >> OK, but wouldn't that break the bindings of this driver when you >> eventually do that? > > That's going to happen regardless, since these bindings are already in > use internally. Mainline (i.e. v4.0+) isn't going to be used in > products for years to come, so we have a lot of time until any new > bindings become ABI. > I thought time starts from upstream. It doesn't seem right to knowingly introduce a binding that we are going to break in coming weeks. For this reason, it needs ACK from some DT maintainer. >> >> > + * struct sti_mbox_msg - sti mailbox message description >> >> > + * @dsize: data payload size >> >> > + * @pdata: message data payload >> >> > + */ >> >> > +struct sti_mbox_msg { >> >> > + u32 dsize; >> >> > + u8 *pdata; >> >> > +}; >> >> > >> >> There isn't any client driver in this patchset to tell exactly, but it >> >> seems the header could be split into one shared between mailbox >> >> clients and provider and another internal to client/provider ? >> > >> > I believe only the above will be required by the client. Seems silly >> > to create a client specific header just for that, don't you think? >> > >> Do you mean to have copies of the structure in controller and client driver? :O > > I do not. I planned on sharing the main header with with client > also. > > But I guess by your reaction you suggest having a teeny client header > as the best way forward then. > Yes, please. And also no header that's included by exactly one file.