On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:14:59PM -0700, mark gross wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 04:24:41PM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:20 PM mark gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 03:01:40PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 02:22:34PM -0800, mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > From: Daniele Alessandrelli <daniele.alessandrelli@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Add DT binding documentation for the Intel Keem Bay IPC driver, which > > > > > > > > Bindings are for h/w blocks, not drivers. From a binding perspective, I > > > > don't really care what the driver architecture for some OS looks like. I > > > > continue to not understand what this h/w looks like. A block diagram > > > > would help as would understanding what blocks have multiple clients > > > > (mailboxes and xlink in particular). > > > I'm working to gather this info. > > > > > Do I pick the mailbox related patches (and which ones exactly) ? > > v6-0002-dt-bindings-mailbox-Add-Intel-VPU-IPC-mailbox-bin.patch > and > v6-0003-mailbox-vpu-ipc-mailbox-Add-support-for-Intel-VPU.patch > Sorry for the confusion and delay. It seems there are some internal requests to change the name of this part of the VPU driver stack to avoid possible future namespace collisions. We will rename the vpu-ipc-mailbox with something more specific to KMB on the next posting. That looks like will have to be against v5.13-rc1 at this point. Sigh. Thanks, --mark
