On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 32I didn't respond because I think Suman got Rob's point wrong.I didn't respond because I think Suman got Rob's point wrong.4 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)?
>
One option is to have controller driver construct interrupt name from
queue and proxy ids like
msgmgr: msgmgr@02a00000 {
....
interrupt-names = "irq_5_2", "irq_0_0"; /* irq_<queue-id>_<proxy-id> */
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 324 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
<GIC_SPI 325 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
}
and have the consumer specify queue and proxy ids in mboxes property like
pmmc {
....
mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
mboxes = <&msgmgr 0 0>
<&msgmgr 5 2>;
};
>>> +...
>>> + 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?
>
Phandle of provider in consumer node is quite normal and acceptable.
I think Rob (at least I am) is talking about the second cell where you
specify phandle (&msgmgr_proxy_xxx) instead of values from those child
nodes directly.
Which is what I suggest mboxes = <&msgmgr 0 0>, <&msgmgr 5 2>;
Cheers!
--
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
