[PATCH v7 2/7] mailbox: arm_mhu: add driver for ARM MHU controller

[Sudeep Holla]

On 18/03/15 13:19, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +static int mhu_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct mhu_link *mlink = chan->con_priv;
>>> +       u32 *arg = data;
>>
>> Arnd doesn't like this and had suggestions in some other thread.
>>
> No, Arnd suggested doing it this way. And another platform's driver
> was made to do this way.
>

IIUC he suggested that it's better to add another interface/API
to pass fixed-length something like

inline int mbox_send_message_u32(struct mbox_chan *chan, u32 msg)
{
	mbox_send_message(chan, &msg, sizeof(msg));
}

and add a length argument to the existing mbox_send_message like:

int mbox_send_message(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *mssg, int length)

Am I missing something here ?

>>> +       writel_relaxed(*arg, mlink->tx_reg + INTR_SET_OFS);
>>> +
>>> +       return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int mhu_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct mhu_link *mlink = chan->con_priv;
>>> +       u32 val;
>>> +       int ret;
>>> +
>>> +       val = readl_relaxed(mlink->tx_reg + INTR_STAT_OFS);
>>> +       writel_relaxed(val, mlink->tx_reg + INTR_CLR_OFS);
>>> +
>>> +       ret = request_irq(mlink->irq, mhu_rx_interrupt,
>>> +                         IRQF_SHARED, "mhu_link", chan);
>>
>>
>> Any reason we can't move this to probe and have {en,dis}able_irq here if
>> needed. I has seen it was too heavy to have these especially when
>> sending small packets.
>>
> I see you used to do memcpy in irq-handler
> https://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/arm/kernel.git/blob/HEAD:/drivers/mailbox/arm_mhu.c
> perhaps you were using your old driver?
>

That driver is too old and long abandoned. It mixes up the protocol
details and was written when mailbox f/w was still under discussion.
So you can forget that, it's out of scope of this discussion.

> If you use this new driver, and send packets so often that
> request-release irq has effect, maybe should hold the mailbox
> reference for lifetime. I remember suggesting you that already and I
> remember you said that's how it was.
>

Ah right, I keep getting confused that ops->startup is called from
mbox_send_message for no reason, sorry for the noise. However,
I found threaded_irq is much better for large packets.

Regards,
Sudeep