Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965246AbaGPOeS (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:34:18 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:58559 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934406AbaGPOeQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:34:16 -0400 Message-ID: <53C68D64.4010702@arm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:34:12 +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 , Jassi Brar CC: Sudeep Holla , "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> <5461658.P0nNPHkj0L@wuerfel> <5214160.a78RDYzY5T@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <5214160.a78RDYzY5T@wuerfel> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2014 14:34:10.0961 (UTC) FILETIME=[021F4010:01CFA103] X-MC-Unique: 114071615341311301 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 15:08, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:42:22 Jassi Brar wrote: >> On 16 July 2014 18:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:35:33 Jassi Brar wrote: >>>> On 16 July 2014 18:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:07:04 Jassi Brar wrote: >>>>>> On 16 July 2014 15:46, 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> A very similar subsystem - DMAEngine also has 'dma-names' as a >>>>>> required property. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a client is assigned only 1 mbox in DT, we can do without >>>>>> mbox-names. But I am not sure what to do if a client needs two or more >>>>>> differently capable mboxes? Simply allocating in order of mbox request >>>>>> doesn't seem very robust. >>>>> >>>>> Traditionally, these things (regs, interrupts, ...) are just accessed >>>>> by index. The reason why dmaengine requires the name is that some machines >>>>> can use multiple DMA engine devices attached to the same request line, >>>>> so the dmaengine subsystem can pick any of them that has a matching >>>>> name. >>>> And also, I think, when a client needs 2 different dma channels, say >>>> for RX and TX each. The api can't assign the first channel specified >>>> in 'dmas' property to the first channel request that comes to it, >>>> unless we assume client driver always requests dma channels in the >>>> order written in its DT node. And this is the main reason I see for >>>> having mbox-names property. >>> >>> Most subsystems require passing an explicit index in this case. >>> >>>> If we make mbox-names optional, do we assume client driver must >>>> request mbox in the order specified in its DT node? >>> >>> Correct. >>> >> OK. So how about we drop mbox-names altogether and expect client >> driver to simply provide an index of the mbox needed? > > That would be fine with me, but I think a lot of people like > the idea of identifying things by name, and are used to that > from the other subsystems. > > Maybe you can leave the mbox-names property defined as 'optional' > in the generic mbox binding but remove the code in Linux? That way > we can always put it back at a later point without changing the > binding in an incompatible way. > > Individual mailbox clients can mandate specific strings. This sounds reasonable to me. Regards, Sudeep -- 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/