Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

[Jassi Brar]

On 16 July 2014 15:46, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> 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.

-jassi
--
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/