Re: [PATCH 6/7] dt-bindings: mailbox: goog-mba: Add goog-mba mailbox bindings

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 6:27 AM Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>   Replying in one place to the two main points of contention ...
>
> 1) Compatible string :-
>    I too think leaving it too generic is a bit bold ... we often think
> it is final but more often it turns out to not be so. But I also don't
> particularly like the idea of naming it after the SoC because
> controller IPs are usually not tied to a SoC. So giving it a
> controller version specific name should be good. I hope we treat all
> controllers as potentially 3rd reusable blocks rather than a part of
> SoC's identity.

Jassi: How strongly do you feel about the above? It seems like
Krzysztof and Rob both feel strongly that any type of generic
compatible string (including a versioned generic name) is not OK. They
seem to strongly believe it should be named after the first SoC that
was upstreamed that contained the IP block.

Will you object if I send a v2 with "google,lga-mailbox-array" as the
compatible string and no generic?

Personally, I don't think this is worth fighting more about, but if
you feel strongly about it then I guess we need to resolve things
between you and the DT maintainers before I can send a v2?


> 2) Single-channel Controllers vs Multi-channel Controller :-
>   Looking at the description of h/w, especially the separate and
> optional register sets and the fact that we are not talking runtime
> ad-hoc links between two endpoints, I lean towards single-channel
> controllers implementation. That seems like tidier dts+code.

Thanks for your opinion. Unless I hear more thoughts on this, I'd be
inclined to send v2 while keeping one node for each single-channel
mailbox.

Jassi: do you want to review anything else in this series before I
send a v2? ...or I can just send a v2 and we can do further review
there. :-)


-Doug