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 S1753025AbbHMNrP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:47:15 -0400
Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]:36379 "EHLO
	mail-ig0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752806AbbHMNqV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:46:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150813130736.GG8782@x1>
References: <20150812102328.GD18282@x1>
	<CABb+yY0A74Vy3-KOvj0URU_4zb2FAC7Yp3gmEwnFaBrD0mzt0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<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>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:16:20 +0530
Message-ID: <CABb+yY2N6=oTrwni0tw1WffLv-udtBWh9LJR43EMVqYf+i2xUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] mailbox: Add generic mechanism for testing Mailbox Controllers
From: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.