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

[Jassi Brar]

On 16 July 2014 19:38, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:42:22 Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 16 July 2014 18:39, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:35:33 Jassi Brar wrote:
>> >> On 16 July 2014 18:15, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Wednesday 16 July 2014 18:07:04 Jassi Brar wrote:
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.
>
Sounds great.

Thanks
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/