Hi Jassi, On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 14:15 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Horng-Shyang Liao <hs.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > >> Platforms that need shared access to a channel, implement a 'server' > >> driver that serialise (which is needed still) the access to common > >> channel. If you think you don't need mutual exclusion and don't care > >> about replies, simply share the mailbox handle among different > >> clients. > > > > Thank you for your kindly reply. > > We would like to discuss further with you on this topic. > > > > Our requirement is > > (1) cmdq task cannot be split, and > > (2) cmdq thread can have multiple cmdq tasks from different clients. > > > > According to your comment "implement a 'server' driver that serialise > > the access to common channel", do you mean we should implement cmdq > > client (mailbox client) as a server and other clients call the functions > > of cmdq client? > > > > clients --> cmdq client (mailbox client) --> cmdq (mailbox controller) > > > > If so, could you please tell us the benefit of using mailbox framework? > > > You don't have to reinvent 80% of the wheel and reuse the mailbox.c > core that supports many features and is tested on many platforms. Your > implementation is going to be quite similar, only you clump all the > code in one file and you use different terminology. > > You said "we will acquire gce thread for client dynamically by > internal policy in cmdq driver" > On mailbox api, this maps to simply sharing the channel/thread handle, > protected by a lock, among clients on some basis (like FCFS or > whatever you internal policy is). So your server driver could be very > thin. And all your clients could follow the mailbox api (which is good > from the point of reusability/portability). > > > Our original plan is to let cmdq driver manage cmdq thread internally. > > Cmdq driver can choose a suitable cmdq thread to execute a flushed cmdq > > task dynamically, and client doesn't need to know the existence of cmdq > > thread. > > > > > > Could you also please tell us the purpose of putting all mailbox > > driver into mailbox folder? > > We know that some other drivers also follow this rule, and just want > > to know more details. > > > Any driver that implements the Mailbox API should live in > drivers/mailbox/. And why you should implement mailbox api, is > explained above. Thank you for your explanation. I will move cmdq driver to mailbox folder in the next version. Thanks, HS -- 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
