Re: [RFC] dt-bindings: mailbox: add doorbell support to ARM MHU

[Sudeep Holla]

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:05:03PM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:40 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 18-05-20, 18:29, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Thu 14 May 22:17 PDT 2020, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > This stuff has been doing rounds on the mailing list since several years
> > > > now with no agreed conclusion by all the parties. And here is another
> > > > attempt to get some feedback from everyone involved to close this once
> > > > and for ever. Your comments will very much be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > The ARM MHU is defined here in the TRM [1] for your reference, which
> > > > states following:
> > > >
> > > >     "The MHU drives the signal using a 32-bit register, with all 32
> > > >     bits logically ORed together. The MHU provides a set of
> > > >     registers to enable software to set, clear, and check the status
> > > >     of each of the bits of this register independently.  The use of
> > > >     32 bits for each interrupt line enables software to provide more
> > > >     information about the source of the interrupt. For example, each
> > > >     bit of the register can be associated with a type of event that
> > > >     can contribute to raising the interrupt."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does this mean that there are 32 different signals and they are all ORed
> > > into the same interrupt line to trigger software action when something
> > > happens?
> > >
> > > Or does it mean that this register is used to pass multi-bit information
> > > and when any such information is passed an interrupt will be triggered?
> > > If so, what does that information mean? How is it tied into other Linux
> > > drivers/subsystems?
> >
> > I have started to believe the hardware is written badly at this point
> > :)
> >
> H/W is actually fine :)   Its just that the driver is written to
> _also_ support a platform (my original) that doesn't have shmem and
> need to pass data via 32bit registers.
> Frankly, I am not against the doorbell mode, I am against implementing
> two modes in a driver. If it really helped (note the past tense) the
> SCMI, we could implement the driver only in doorbell mode but
> unfortunately SCMI would still be _broken_ for non-doorbell
> controllers.

Should be fine as the specification is designed to work with only shmem
for any data transfer and mailbox is just a signal mechanism. I won't
be too worried about that.

--
Regards,
Sudeep