Re: [PATCHv5 2/4] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

[Jassi Brar]

On 5 June 2014 16:42, Matt Porter <mporter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 03:51:55PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
>> BTW, here we at least have a hardware resource to specify in the DT
>> node, there are examples in kernel where the DT nodes are purely
>> virtual. For ex, grep for "linux,spdif-dit". So I think we should be
>> ok.
>>
>
> There's a bit of a difference between my concern over a virtual node and
> this example you've cited. In the dummy spdif transmitter, it's defining
> a virtual device that plugs in for a codec, a hardware concept well
> defined in the audio bindings. I agree that there are many examples of
> this type of virtual node, including dummy phys, but in all cases they
> are stubbing out a real hardware concept.
>
> I find it to be distinctly different to create a node that doesn't
> represent the hardware's use of mailboxes.
>
The way I see "cpm_ipc" is that it represents a device that doesn't
need MMIO or an IRQ, but only the mailbox hardware resource.
"linux,spdif-dit" needs no hardware resource at all. So if anything,
more "virtual" than cpm_ipc.

> I'd be happy if a DT
> maintainer could say that this is acceptable though. ;)
>
OK, though it becomes clear only after reading this ;)

Cheers
-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/