From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3204C3A59B for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:52:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FCC2173E for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:52:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HwFFZ19r" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728288AbfH3QwL (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:52:11 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f67.google.com ([209.85.166.67]:38678 "EHLO mail-io1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727883AbfH3QwL (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:52:11 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f67.google.com with SMTP id p12so15391599iog.5; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:52:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SFX0aYjr12ElBxGUUuhmY02XvhQTT8mqSM2FhQu+1yo=; b=HwFFZ19rxfnn+04b1Fr5rxhs3yfgcYVDVOTgKOICvS7Vje0P49EkKSbtocdc/9zLWl dxGRUNg782DyUerU+Dqk1UqTnHE6f8Ek6Te/hEbgue33eB2Du0Qs7yeWFz9gvDwFOOoL 0wt61hfVhfQ+FcEv88vCKbX1sY4EZ0cV28FsfNkpaqgL5vHT7QeQb5m2jZXo/c/99jVz Qg45hz8w9fCRCb9H+9mJbJCN06R35ff7rer6FTu9xUvDSd1hTLhKsxdnIgyBonUm7QFy jlqtnwF1BuJy743RtUXI/EitGhKAHOIRr45QoooQUG3Sd9xyqJQa1bYTs8EDTTFUcGUn 88Fg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SFX0aYjr12ElBxGUUuhmY02XvhQTT8mqSM2FhQu+1yo=; b=cexcl1E8p71H6ubfbGbZb1KlJmSpngWTj7l73VZrdLq4ujcmO+qEjsljVShgWYEtSC ctQrrn0bSw1pQwW/BDZqSj+/0gekde0zZoTkRAhGiRWyNawbEqb2PfKj7mX/IHHcgYMR n5Ki0FYicgPSNvlb5QxoqDoH+/PqMyKGFlJgm7M11oKkcsG+uCNCcjIqBBFgSgb6QmOT Tcifg1lBgdCoCV21s+0aUBtGAchSjGWJlWyVuYKTca+/VTpqzjU3IXWpOVK6Eq15DNTe MytjwzuLlZ4cDDjx1XIqxdrA1oXVZQiZROYN5Ejw0n22zqmt6vCxk6WQKyCz2kaWcmSs tugQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPeavTRXssxcYKRbt5IxbPa2golIUQbaSWToZKxi1G1KfrNRCl D4BLmT3vrWTJAJZNiBxTxOv0g0YykAvmgrMQ9nc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzlWKFgDjjTrfQIk2y6OxaZynvy50zrh4t0KFl0mhFUbX+7qbK9xlyq9+st7WcODuPeEFGuzw0P4nS0q6CRW4k= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:143:: with SMTP id y3mr16244129jao.68.1567183930478; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:52:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1567004515-3567-1-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com> <1567004515-3567-2-git-send-email-peng.fan@nxp.com> <20190830093224.GB31297@bogus> In-Reply-To: <20190830093224.GB31297@bogus> From: Jassi Brar Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:51:59 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Peng Fan , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "andre.przywara@arm.com" , "f.fainelli@gmail.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , dl-linux-imx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 4:32 AM Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:52:40AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:37 AM Peng Fan wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > If I get your point correctly, > > > On UP, both could not be active. On SMP, tx/rx could be both active, anyway > > > this depends on secure firmware and Linux firmware design. > > > > > > Do you have any suggestions about arm,func-ids here? > > > > > I was thinking if this is just an instruction, why can't each channel > > be represented as a controller, i.e, have exactly one func-id per > > controller node. Define as many controllers as you need channels ? > > > > I might have missed to follow this, but what's the advantage of doing so ? > Which can't single controller instance deal with all the channels ? > There are many advantages ... 1) Design reflects the reality - two smc/hvc instructions have nothing tying them together. 2) Driver code becomes simpler - don't have to pre-populate channels, deducting from the size of func-ids array. 3) Driver becomes more flexible - We can have channels that pass func-id runtime and channels that pass via DT (if we must have the option of DT property). -jassi