Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759509AbaGPLQ4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:16:56 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:43101 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757199AbaGPLQz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:16:55 -0400 Message-ID: <53C65F22.20101@arm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:16:50 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Sudeep Holla , Jassi Brar , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ks.giri@samsung.com" , "ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk" , Mark Rutland , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , Pawel Moll , "courtney.cavin@sonymobile.com" , "mporter@linaro.org" , "slapdau@yahoo.com.au" , "lftan.linux@gmail.com" , "loic.pallardy@st.com" , "s-anna@ti.com" , "ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org" , "bjorn@kryo.se" , "patches@linaro.org" , "Mollie.Wu@tw.fujitsu.com" , "t.takinishi@jp.fujitsu.com" Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox References: <1405071167-14503-1-git-send-email-jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> <1405071325-14683-1-git-send-email-jaswinder.singh@linaro.org> <53C64883.2050709@arm.com> <5340858.B9CZUE8s0j@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <5340858.B9CZUE8s0j@wuerfel> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2014 11:16:49.0532 (UTC) FILETIME=[701493C0:01CFA0E7] X-MC-Unique: 114071612165200601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16/07/14 11:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2014 10:40:19 Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> + >>> +Required property: >>> +- mbox: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifier. >>> + >>> +- mbox-names: List of identifier strings for each mailbox channel >>> + required by the client. >>> + >> >> IMO the mailbox names are more associated with the controller channels/ >> mailbox rather than the clients using it. Does it make sense to move >> this under controller. It also avoid each client replicating the names. > > I think it would be best to just make the mbox-names property optional, > like we have for other subsystems. > OK that makes sense. > Doing it in the mbox-controller makes no sense at all, because the > mbox controller has (or should have) no idea what the attached devices are. > Agreed if these mbox-names are more specific to attached devices and that was my initial understanding too. But I got confused when I saw something like below in the patch[1] + mhu: mhu0@2b1f0000 { + #mbox-cells = <1>; + compatible = "fujitsu,mhu"; + reg = <0 0x2B1F0000 0x1000>; + interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP Non-Sec */ + <0 35 4>, /* HP Non-Sec */ + <0 37 4>; /* Secure */ + }; + + mhu_client: scb@0 { + compatible = "fujitsu,scb"; + mbox = <&mhu 1>; + mbox-names = "HP_NonSec"; + }; Here the name used is more controller specific. Regards, Sudeep [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg346991.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/