On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/06/16 08:12, Horng-Shyang Liao wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 10:46 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote: >>> I keep thinking about how to get rid of the two data structures, >>> task_busy_list and the task_release_wq. We need the latter for the only >>> sake of getting a timeout. >>> >>> Did you have a look on how the mailbox framework handles this? >>> By the way, what is the reason to not implement the whole driver as a >>> mailbox controller? For me, this driver looks like a good fit. >> >> >> CMDQ needs to encode commands for GCE hardware. We think this behavior >> should be put in CMDQ driver, and client just call CMDQ functions. >> Therefore, if we want to use mailbox framework, cmdq_rec must be >> mailbox client, and the others must be mailbox controller. >> > > You mean the functions to fill the cmdq_rec and execute it? > I think this should be part of the driver. > > Jassi, can you have a look on the interface this driver exports [0]. > They are needed to actually create the message which will be send. > Could something like this be part of a mailbox driver? > > [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9140221/ > Packet creating/parsing should not be a part of controller driver. As the log of this patch says, today it is used for only display but in future it could work with other h/w as well, so it makes sense to have mailbox api do the message queuing, the controller driver do the send/receive and client drivers implement display and other h/w specific packaging of data (protocol handling). So yes, I think this could use mailbox api. 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
