On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote:
> >
> >> > +
> >> > + if ((!data) || (!sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox)))
> >> >
> >> nit: too much protection.
> >
> > What makes you think that?
> >
> Usually we write
> if (!data || !sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox))
Ah, the parentheses. Yes, I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
> >> > + mbox->irq = irq_create_mapping(mbinst->irq_domain,
> >> > + mbox->rx_id);
> >> >
> >> simply assigning same IRQ to all controller DT nodes and using
> >> IRQF_SHARED for the common handler, wouldn't work?
> >
> > I do have intentions to simplify this driver somewhat, but that will
> > take some time as it will require a great deal of consultation and
> > testing from the ST side. This is the current internal implementation
> > which is used in the wild and has been fully tested. If you'll allow
> > me to conduct my adaptions subsequently we can have full history and a
> > possible reversion plan if anything untoward take place i.e. I mess
> > something up.
> >
> OK, but wouldn't that break the bindings of this driver when you
> eventually do that?
That's going to happen regardless, since these bindings are already in
use internally. Mainline (i.e. v4.0+) isn't going to be used in
products for years to come, so we have a lot of time until any new
bindings become ABI.
> >> > + * struct sti_mbox_msg - sti mailbox message description
> >> > + * @dsize: data payload size
> >> > + * @pdata: message data payload
> >> > + */
> >> > +struct sti_mbox_msg {
> >> > + u32 dsize;
> >> > + u8 *pdata;
> >> > +};
> >> >
> >> There isn't any client driver in this patchset to tell exactly, but it
> >> seems the header could be split into one shared between mailbox
> >> clients and provider and another internal to client/provider ?
> >
> > I believe only the above will be required by the client. Seems silly
> > to create a client specific header just for that, don't you think?
> >
> Do you mean to have copies of the structure in controller and client driver? :O
I do not. I planned on sharing the main header with with client
also.
But I guess by your reaction you suggest having a teeny client header
as the best way forward then.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog