Re: [PATCH v6 04/34] dt-bindings: Add bindings for Keem Bay IPC driver

[Jassi Brar]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:55 AM mark gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:14:59PM -0700, mark gross wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 04:24:41PM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:20 PM mark gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 03:01:40PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 02:22:34PM -0800, mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > From: Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Add DT binding documentation for the Intel Keem Bay IPC driver, which
> > > > >
> > > > > Bindings are for h/w blocks, not drivers. From a binding perspective, I
> > > > > don't really care what the driver architecture for some OS looks like. I
> > > > > continue to not understand what this h/w looks like. A block diagram
> > > > > would help as would understanding what blocks have multiple clients
> > > > > (mailboxes and xlink in particular).
> > > > I'm working to gather this info.
> > > >
> > > Do I pick the mailbox related patches (and which ones exactly) ?
> >
> > v6-0002-dt-bindings-mailbox-Add-Intel-VPU-IPC-mailbox-bin.patch
> > and
> > v6-0003-mailbox-vpu-ipc-mailbox-Add-support-for-Intel-VPU.patch
> >
> Sorry for the confusion and delay.  It seems there are some internal requests
> to change the name of this part of the VPU driver stack to avoid possible future
> namespace collisions.
>
> We will rename the vpu-ipc-mailbox with something more specific to KMB on the
> next posting.  That looks like will have to be against v5.13-rc1 at this point.
> Sigh.
>
Ok, I will dequeue the patches.

-j