On 02/08/2016 10:14 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
Thanks for the review.
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> +
>> + msgmgr: msgmgr@02a00000 {
>> + compatible = "ti,k2g-message-manager", "ti,message-manager";
>> + #mbox-cells = <1>;
>> + reg-names = "queue_proxy_region", "queue_state_debug_region";
>> + reg = <0x02a00000 0x400000>, <0x028c3400 0x400>;
>> +
>> + msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx_prio0: pmmc_tx_prio0 {
>> + ti,queue-id = <0>;
>> + ti,proxy-id = <0>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx: pmmc_rx {
>> + ti,queue-id = <5>;
>> + ti,proxy-id = <2>;
>> + interrupt-names = "rx";
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 324 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
> I think we should get rid of consumer specifics from the provider node...
If I get rid of the consumer nodes, how do you propose I describe the rx
queue interrupt(s) in the msmgr dt node (Every Rx queue will have it's
own interrupt - and it cannot be reverse computed from queue ID, proxy ID)?
>> +...
>> + pmmc {
>> + ...
>> + mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>> + mboxes = <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx>
>> + <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx>;
>> + ...
>> + };
>>
> ... and have consumers like
> pmmc {
> ...
> mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
> mboxes = <&msgmgr 0 0>
> <&msgmgr 5 2>;
> };
>
> I leave the IRQ for you to decide how to specify - a 'dummy' or
> 'valid' always provided as last cell in mboxes or some other way.
> (I'll review other patches in detail later)
What do we do with the issues that Suman pointed out in the mailbox
framework itself? Could you respond to that thread[1] as well?
[1] http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=145496308418123&w=2
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
