Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM SMC/HVC mailbox
From: Jassi Brar
Date: Fri Aug 30 2019 - 12:52:13 EST
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 4:32 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:52:40AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:37 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > If I get your point correctly,
> > > On UP, both could not be active. On SMP, tx/rx could be both active, anyway
> > > this depends on secure firmware and Linux firmware design.
> > >
> > > Do you have any suggestions about arm,func-ids here?
> > >
> > I was thinking if this is just an instruction, why can't each channel
> > be represented as a controller, i.e, have exactly one func-id per
> > controller node. Define as many controllers as you need channels ?
> I might have missed to follow this, but what's the advantage of doing so ?
> Which can't single controller instance deal with all the channels ?
There are many advantages ...
1) Design reflects the reality - two smc/hvc instructions have nothing
tying them together.
2) Driver code becomes simpler - don't have to pre-populate channels,
deducting from the size of func-ids array.
3) Driver becomes more flexible - We can have channels that pass
func-id runtime and channels that pass via DT (if we must have the
option of DT property).