[PATCH 7/8] mailbox: f_mhu: add driver for Fujitsu MHU controller

Jassi Brar jaswinder.singh at linaro.org
Fri Jul 18 02:06:30 PDT 2014

On 18 July 2014 00:21, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
> On 17/07/14 18:07, Jassi Brar wrote:

>>> I believe that's what we need here if we want this driver to work
>>> on both Juno and your platform. Agree ?
>> Does this driver not work for Juno?
> I have not yet tried yet. For sure secure access will explode.
OK, I will remove setting up SCFG.

>>> No what I meant is unless there is a real need to use hard irq, we
>>> should prefer threaded one otherwise.
>> And how does controller discern a "real need" from a "soft need" to
>> use hard irq?
>> Even if the controller driver pushes data up from a threaded function,
>> the client can't know the context and can't sleep because the
>> intermediate API says the rx_callback should be assumed to be atomic.
> Yes I am not arguing on that, it should assume atomic and not sleep.
> I am saying we can avoid rx_callback in interrupt context if possible.
> I will try to look at the protocol implementation tomorrow.
There is only one way for controller to push data to client... which
is rx_callback() and it specified to be atomic.

>> Again, it maybe more efficient if I see your implementation of the
>> driver and understand your concerns about mine.
> As I said its almost same as this, except I call mbox_chan_received_data
> in irq thread context. I prefer enabling other interrupts while copying
> payload data.
You call mbox_chan_received_data (which does rx_callback) from
threaded handler. If your client only does atomic stuff in
rx_callback(), then you pay for nothing. If your client does sleepable
stuff then, as you agree, that's wrong.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list