On 18 June 2014 22:33, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 18 June 2014 05:57, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Introduce common framework for client/protocol drivers and >>>> controller drivers of Inter-Processor-Communication (IPC). >>>> >>>> Client driver developers should have a look at >>>> include/linux/mailbox_client.h to understand the part of >>>> the API exposed to client drivers. >>>> Similarly controller driver developers should have a look >>>> at include/linux/mailbox_controller.h >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This series is shaping up nicely. The one thing I think it would >>> benefit from, being a new common framework is something under >>> Documentation giving a brief overview, but more importantly some >>> example code snippets of a mailbox client using the API, and maybe an >>> example usage of the controller API as well. >>> >>> Not only will that guide developers who want to use/implement this API >>> on their platforms, it will also aid reviewers. >>> >> I have been trying to get it upstream for quite some time now because >> my platform depends upon it. I am planning to submit my platform >> support which should have a client and controller side of the mailbox >> API. > > Having a reference implementation is great, but I don't think that > removes the need for a bit of Documentation when introducing a new > framework. > > It's pretty common to see new IPC mechanisms posted and being able to > point somone to this framework and something under Documentation/* would > be a great help in getting more users of the framework. > Of course. I didn't mean I won't add Documentation. >> Though I am told the API (until v4 at least) supported usecases for 5 >> different platforms. > > That's great. > > I sure would like to see some more Reviewed-by tags from those folks to > confirm that those starting to use it think it's on the right track. > The upstreaming attempts have been going on for months now, and via non-public interactions with developers I understand it last worked before the revision mandating DT support and ipc->mailbox symbol renaming. So basic working should still remain the same. Suman(TI), Loic(ST), Girish(Samsung), Ashwin (PCC+ACPI).... guys, any word for v7? LFTan(Intel) and Craig(Broadcom) seem unresponsive now, unfortunately :( 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
