[PATCH 1/3 v5] dt/bindings: Add binding for the BCM2835 mailbox driver

[Stephen Warren]

On 04/29/15 10:39, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> writes:
>
>> On 04/28/2015 02:44 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>
>>> Signed-off-by: Craig McGeachie <slapdau at yahoo.com.au>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>
>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org>
>>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> v2: Split into a separate patch for submitting to the devicetree list.
>>>      Consistently start node docs with a capital letter. device's
>>>      address in the example shouldn't have "0x". Drop machine-specific
>>>      interrupt numbers from the docs.  (changes by anholt).
>>>
>>> v3: Move the file to just bcm2835-mbox.txt, clean up formatting
>>>      (changes by anholt, from review by Lee Jones).
>>>
>>> v4: Move file back by consensus from various Broadcom platform
>>>      maintainers (changes by anholt, acked by Lee Jones).
>>>
>>> v5: Document that the mailbox cell should be 0 in clients, and add an
>>>      example of a client (changes by anholt, from review by Jassi).
>>
>> Some mention of what you changed in the patch might be nice, since it
>> was originally authored by someone else, and there's quite a changelog.
>
> I've been taking this changelog stuff out of the patch and putting it
> below '---' because when I was submitting this series before, I got
> chided for putting it in the patch!

A changelog and a description of the changes you've made aren't quite 
the same thing.

There should be some mention in the commit description of what you 
changed relative to the patch that someone else authored, so they don't 
get blaimed/praised for any of your changes. The format of that 
description wouldn't usually be a detailed patch revision changelog 
though, just a description of the overall changes that were left in the 
final version.

>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/brcm,bcm2835-mbox.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/brcm,bcm2835-mbox.txt
>>
>>> +- #mbox-cells:	Specifies the number of cells needed to encode a mailbox
>>> +		  channel. The value shall be 1.  Clients should supply a value
>>> +		  of 0 for the mailbox channel, because there is only one
>>> +		  exposed
>>
>> Can't you use #mbox-cells = <0> if there's no data to provide?
>
> of_mbox_index_xlate looks like it's always dereferencing the first arg.

Is it possible to fix that?

That said, last I looked at the HW I thought there were actually 
multiple channels possible, so perhaps having a cell for future 
expansion is reasonable.