On 16/07/14 11:16, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 16 July 2014 10:40:19 Sudeep Holla wrote:
+
+Required property:
+- mbox: List of phandle and mailbox channel specifier.
+
+- mbox-names: List of identifier strings for each mailbox channel
+ required by the client.
+
IMO the mailbox names are more associated with the controller channels/
mailbox rather than the clients using it. Does it make sense to move
this under controller. It also avoid each client replicating the names.
I think it would be best to just make the mbox-names property optional,
like we have for other subsystems.
OK that makes sense.
Doing it in the mbox-controller makes no sense at all, because the
mbox controller has (or should have) no idea what the attached devices are.
Agreed if these mbox-names are more specific to attached devices and that
was my initial understanding too. But I got confused when I saw something
like below in the patch[1]
+ mhu: mhu0@2b1f0000 {
+ #mbox-cells = <1>;
+ compatible = "fujitsu,mhu";
+ reg = <0 0x2B1F0000 0x1000>;
+ interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP Non-Sec */
+ <0 35 4>, /* HP Non-Sec */
+ <0 37 4>; /* Secure */
+ };
+
+ mhu_client: scb@0 {
+ compatible = "fujitsu,scb";
+ mbox = <&mhu 1>;
+ mbox-names = "HP_NonSec";
+ };
Here the name used is more controller specific.
Regards,
Sudeep
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg346991.html
--
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
