On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:55 AM mark gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Ok, I will dequeue the patches. -j
