On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/05/17 12:55, Jassi Brar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> If it is still not clear, please share your client driver. I >>>>>> will adapt that to work with existing MHU driver & bindings. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just take example of SCPI in the mainline. Assume there's another >>>>> protocol SCMI which uses few more bits in the same channel and the >>>>> remote firmware implements both but both are totally independent >>>>> and not related/linked. Also be keep in mind that SCPI is used by >>>>> other platforms and so will be the new protocol. We simply make >>>>> SCPI or SCMI bindings aligned to ARM MHU. That's ruled out. >>>>> >>>> Not sure what you mean by "that's ruled out". >>> >>> 1. The mailbox client bindings should be independent of this ARM MHU >>> mailbox bindings >>> 2. All we need in client is a mailbox to point at and not any meta data >>> That's what I meant by ruled-out as both client and MHU can be used >>> independent of each other and *should not* be linked. >>> >> I am shocked at this coming from you. >> >> You design SCMI based upon MHU assumption of single bit "doorbell" and >> then you say a client should be independent of the underlying >> controller? Do you intend SCMI to work only over MHU? >> > > No, I never said that. What I said is SCMI protocol will be on doorbell > based. > What if a controller does not support your definition of "doorbell"? Like PL320 from ARM and many others. >> What if some controller does not support the simple "doorbell" and >> expects detailed info? For example, apart from SCMI, the remote also >> supports platform specific functions like thermal, watchdog, wakeup >> etc. The SCMI's would just be a subset of the full command set. >> You/SCMI can not dictate what numerical value the platform assigns to >> SCMI commands... > > What ? That's the whole point of specification. The command set is > *fixed* and can be implemented on any platform and have generic driver > for that. > The code/value for commands in SHM data packet is SCMI specific. But what a platform assigns to THIS_IS_SCMI_DOORBELL is going to be platform specific i.e, not always BIT(x) >>> On digging more about different mailbox controllers, I found >>> mailbox-sti.c has exactly similar logic as what I have done in this series. >>> > > Did you look at this driver ? > Dude, I merged this driver upstream! I don't remember exactly about STI controller, but it definitely is different from MHU. >>> Also don't mix implementation with the binding. I need a simple answer >>> in this binding. How do I represent specific bits if each bit is >>> implemented as a doorbell ? That's all. First let's agree on that when >>> we use this mailbox independently and please *don't mix* with any >>> client here. It's simple, this controller has 2-3 sets of 32 doorbell >>> bits. And I am aiming to come up with the binding for that as your >>> initial bindings didn't consider that. >>> >> Please send in whatever changes you plan to do, and I'll modify it so >> we don't have to bloat the MHU driver and add bindings for a software >> feature. Until then ... Cheers! >> > > Changes to what ? arm_mhu.c ? This series is complete and implements > doorbell completely. > Send in the user/client driver that you think can not work with existing driver/bindings. -- 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
