From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755813AbdGXRjX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:39:23 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:35902 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753877AbdGXRi2 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:38:28 -0400
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.xyz>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] mailbox: introduce ARM SMC based mailbox
To: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Przywara?= <andre.przywara@arm.com>
References: <20170630095608.24943-1-andre.przywara@arm.com>
 <20170630095608.24943-2-andre.przywara@arm.com>
 <CABb+yY18Aye3wr2A9-+jemqc=VSRyUA+xzKGo9s0G4KCt1ovyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <22d23c1d-ea8d-9829-4624-6305cd83ad4a@arm.com>
 <CABb+yY2hjfXdiCSZXd5TJf8=janwjWEo2oSqrxdoWc=1oUtteQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Organization: ARM
Message-ID: <0aaba7fb-2183-2d4d-ba04-64b30cd0ae10@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 18:38:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABb+yY2hjfXdiCSZXd5TJf8=janwjWEo2oSqrxdoWc=1oUtteQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On 24/07/17 18:20, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:50 AM, André Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 02/07/17 06:55, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>
>>>> +       mbox_chan_received_data(link, (void *)res.a0);
>>>> +
>>> Or you can update the 'data' with value from 'a0' ?
>>
>> Mmh, I am a bit puzzled by this. Why would this be needed or useful?
>>
> I meant instead of calling mbox_chan_received_data(), simply update
> the value at 'data' with res.a0
> 
> Technically the firmware does not "send" us a message. It only updates
> the structure we share with it. So maybe we could reflect that by
> updating the data pointer the client driver asked to send.
> Also it is optional for clients to provide the rx_callback(). By
> calling mbox_chan_received_data() you mandate clients provide that
> callback.
> 
> Nothing serious, just that looking closely, updating 'data' seems a
> better option.
> 
>> I see that the SCPI firmware driver (as the user of the mailbox API) is
>> expecting the return value from a0 as returned above, translating the
>> firmware error codes into Linux' ones.
>>
> I am afraid, SCPI driver is not the golden example for client drivers
> to follow. It is supposed to work only with MHU, and then, it is
> likely to break if some other protocol is running parallel to it.
> 

Not sure why do you say it works only with ARM MHU ? AmLogic uses it
with their mailbox driver. However they followed an interim version of
the SCPI spec which is termed "legacy" in the driver.
-- 
Regards,
Sudeep