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 S1752887AbbHMO0U (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:26:20 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:37079 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751862AbbHMO0T (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:26:19 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:26:14 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel@stlinux.com, Devicetree List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] mailbox: Add generic mechanism for testing
 Mailbox Controllers
Message-ID: <20150813142614.GH8782@x1>
References: <20150813091914.GB8782@x1>
 <CABb+yY0cgbtM68-E_Xqgh5O6GRLXESYTLa5WcAwUBoVL3ufrxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150813102335.GC8782@x1>
 <CABb+yY3z7p97eOhncQ2i+g6yoYGfDgSN9BDPKmiDaVLa3oPocA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150813110008.GD8782@x1>
 <CABb+yY34i=VUnswUE21vgeQYAGOS=7uwvdnTAFFgYkTV0CFk=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150813114005.GF8782@x1>
 <CABb+yY2OH16mgOwi=yH_eEHQN2Ck2x5xtVk-p-8Un9gGmcACdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150813130736.GG8782@x1>
 <CABb+yY2N6=oTrwni0tw1WffLv-udtBWh9LJR43EMVqYf+i2xUg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABb+yY2N6=oTrwni0tw1WffLv-udtBWh9LJR43EMVqYf+i2xUg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, Jassi Brar wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Now just agree with me that mbox_request_chan() should fail on request
> > of a known bad configuration request and I can code all this up and
> > re-submit. :D
> >
> You make me look like a jerk :(   My problem is not with validation as
> such. I see problem in the way you implement that makes validation
> necessary. I'll explain step-by-step in the driver post.

That wasn't the intention, don't be so sensitive. ;)

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog