[PATCH 01/10] dt/bindings: Add binding for BCM2835 mailbox driver

Stephen Warren swarren at wwwdotorg.org
Tue Mar 3 18:37:17 PST 2015

On 03/03/2015 12:28 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Lee Jones <lee at kernel.org> writes:
>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2015, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> From: Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>
>>> v2: Split into a separate patch for submitting to the 
>>> devicetree list.
>>> ---

Generally, the changelog should go below the --- since most people
don't want to see the changelog committed into the source.

>>> .../devicetree/bindings/mailbox/brcm,bcm2835-mbox.txt | 19 
>>> +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) create 
>>> mode 100644 
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/brcm,bcm2835-mbox.txt
diff --git
>>> new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f5741a0 --- /dev/null +++ 
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mailbox/brcm,bcm2835-mbox.txt
Rename these files to conform to the current naming convention.  In
>> -next we currently have 'altera-mailbox.txt' and 
>> 'omap-mailbox.txt', so 'bcm2835-mbox.txt' seems appropriate.
> Will do.

I believe all the current bcm2835 bindings use the compatible value as
the filename. I personally prefer this to picking a different "random"
name for the filenames. It means you only have to name the thing once,
and then use the same value for the compatible property and binding

>>> +Example: + +mailbox: mailbox at 7e00b800 { +	compatible = 
>>> "brcm,bcm2835-mbox"; +	reg = <0x7e00b880 0x40>; +	interrupts = 
>>> <0 1>; +	#mbox-cells = <1>; +};
>> It would be good to see the client examples here as well.
>> Please consider pulling in brcm,bcm2835-mbox-power.txt and 
>> brcm,bcm2835-mbox-property.txt.
> Oh, so have those two just smashed into this file as one set of 
> documentation for everything to do with mailbox on bcm2835?  That 
> seems good to me.  When I was adding the client drivers, the fact 
> that the other brcm file was named after the compatible string
> made me generate new files under then new compatible strings, but
> the other drivers already in the tree obviously aren't formatted
> that way.

The HW mailbox seems like a different process to the upper-layer
protocols/message formats running over the top of it. Sure right now
the Pi has a single firmware, but do all bcm2835-based devices share
the same firmware? Is so, we'd be warranted in lumping the HW and
firmware protocol together, but I rather wonder whether e.g. the
bcm2835-based Roku uses the same firmware protocol?

More information about the linux-rpi-kernel mailing list