Re: [PATCH v3 03/22] dt-bindings: arm: scmi: add ARM MHU specific mailbox client bindings

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 02:11:27PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> +- mbox-data : For each phandle listed in mboxes property, an unsigned 32-bit
>>>>> +           data as expected by the mailbox controller
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't that be cells as part of mboxes property?
>>>>
>>> A MHU client can send any number of commands (such u32 values) over a channel.
>>> This client (SCMI) sends just one command over a channel, but other
>>> clients may/do send two or more.

The above definition doesn't support 2 or more as it is 1-1 with channels.

>> Okay, then I guess I don't understand why this is in DT.
>>
> Yeah the client has to provide code (u32 value) for the commands it
> sends, and that value is going to be platform specific. For example,
> on Juno the ITS_AN_SCMI_COMMAND may be defined as BIT(7) while on my
> platform it may be 0x4567
>
> For MHU based platforms, it becomes easy if the u32 is passed from DT.
> And that should be ok since that is like a h/w parameter - a value
> chosen/expected by the remote firmware.

Could it ever be more than 1 cell?

I guess being in DT is fine, but I'm still not sure about the naming.
The current name suggests it is part of the mbox binding. Do we want
that or should it be SCMI specific? Then "data" is vague. Perhaps
"scmi-commands"?

Rob