On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 17 March 2014, Jassi Brar wrote: >> Perhaps the mailbox controller driver should name its links as it >> wants. By how the remote works with the mailbox links, the client >> driver asks for a specific mailbox link (which maybe a hardcoded >> string in the driver or be gotten alongside other data via client's >> DT) ? > > I don't see why we should do it any different from the other bindings. > Let's just stick with mboxes/mbox-names or mailboxes/mailbox-names > if you prefer. > >> IOW we can't have a generic API/DT-bindings that could get us >> reusable client drivers. But only common framework/code that would >> otherwise be duplicated by every platform. > > That is a major benefit though. > Also even if most drivers won't work across multiple platforms, there > is still a reasonable chance that /some/ drivers will. > It seems those /some/ drivers will have to work with everything same but the channel name (which the client could get from its DT node when the second platform appears). Anyways, I accept your opinion and I will specify DT binding for mailbox<->client in next revision. Also I just read the new requirement of 'peek_message' for QMTM driver, which isn't supported atm but should be easy. Thanks -Jassi -- 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
