Re: [PATCH 0/9] drivers: mailbox: framework creation

[Omar Ramirez Luna]

Hi Loic/Ohad,

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Loic PALLARDY <loic.pallardy@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/2012 08:31 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Olof Johansson<olof@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>> While we can make the branch stable, would it make sense to make
>>> remoteproc for omap depend on !multiplatform during the transition, to
>>> reduce dependencies a little? Either way works, but it'd be nice to
>>> keep them independent if we can.
>>
>> I'm not sure multiplatform is the culprit; OMAP's remoteproc driver
>> heavily depends on this mailbox code, and obviously breaks with this
>> patch-set if only for the the naming changes. We'll need this patch
>> set to update omap's remoteproc as well so at least we don't break
>> bisectibility, though running a sanity test before merging would be
>> even nicer (Loic I can help if you don't have a panda board).
>
> Hi Ohad,
> Yes tidspbridge and remoteproc must be adapted.
> This new mailbox fw has been tested on TI environment by Omar, who did
> adaptation at least for tidspbridge.
>
> Omar, do you have patch series ready for TI adaptations to new mailbox
> framework?
> Else I can do it, but I won't be able to test it (no panda board)

Yes, I made the changes, for tidspbridge and remoteproc, I will submit
both for review, based on this series.

Cheers,

Omar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/