On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 20 March 2014 21:39:56 Jassi Brar wrote: >> 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). > > Why would you ever have varying channel names? I would expect that > the name is always fixed in the binding of the client driver, like > we do for clocks or interrupts for instance. > I meant across platforms and without generic DT bindings for mailboxes. Not during runtime. -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
