On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote: > Hi Krzysztof > > Ack, sounds good. > > Maybe also from you, any opinion between these two binding styles? > > So first using index of mboxes for the numbering, where for the known > usages the first element (and sometimes the 3rd - ipc-2) are empty <>. > > The second variant is using mbox-names to get the correct channel-mbox > mapping. > > - qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>; > - qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>; > - qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>; > + mboxes = <0>, <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>; > > vs. > > - qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>; > - qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>; > - qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>; > + mboxes = <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>; > + mbox-names = "ipc-1", "ipc-2", "ipc-3"; Sorry, don't get, ipc-1 is the first mailbox, so why would there be <0> in first case? Anyway, the question is if you need to know that some mailbox is missing. But then it is weird to name them "ipc-1" etc. Best regards, Krzysztof
