On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:17:00PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 09:47:12AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > [...] > > Perhaps you'd be less concerned about such a change if it was perhaps > > more explicit? Just throwing ideas around, I think something that could > > also work is if we explicitly add a mbox_flush() function that would > > basically be calling ->flush(). That way users of the mailbox can make > > their requirement very explicit. I haven't actually tested that, but I > > think it would work. Does that sound more acceptable to you? > > I tried implementing the explicit flushing on top of this series and it > would look roughly like the below. What do you think? > > Thierry > > --->8--- > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox.c [...] > @@ -184,9 +185,6 @@ static int tegra_tcu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return -ENOMEM; > > tcu->tx_client.dev = &pdev->dev; > - tcu->tx_client.tx_block = true; > - tcu->tx_client.tx_tout = 10000; > - tcu->rx_client.dev = &pdev->dev; Somehow this line ended up being removed in the diff, but it's actually required. Only tx_block and tx_tout should be removed in this hunk. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
