Il 09/06/22 10:31, Tinghan Shen ha scritto:
Rename mbox according to action instead of 'mbox0' and 'mbox1'
Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c b/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
index cb255a99170c..3de94765d659 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/mtk-adsp-ipc.c
@@ -83,7 +83,11 @@ static int mtk_adsp_ipc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return -ENOMEM;
for (i = 0; i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM; i++) {
- chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "mbox%d", i);
+ if (i < MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM / 2)
+ chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "rep");
+ else
+ chan_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "req");
+
if (!chan_name) {
ret = -ENOMEM;
goto out;
At this point, just call them "reply" and "request", as that simply provides a
perfectly clear explanation.
Besides, I'm sorry but I really don't like this code, it's really too much
fragile and will have to be changed entirely if a third mbox is introduced.
I can suggest a cooler way:
static const char * const adsp_mbox_ch_names[MTK_ADSP_MBOX_NUM] = { "rep", "req" };
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(adsp_mbox_ch_names); i++) {
/* we can delete chan_name and also avoid a kfree if we do... */
.... code ....
adsp_chan->ch = mbox_request_channel_byname(cl, adsp_mbox_ch_names[i]);
... etc etc ...
}
Cheers,
Angelo
