On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015, Jassi Brar wrote:
>
>> > +
>> > + if ((!data) || (!sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox)))
>> >
>> nit: too much protection.
>
> What makes you think that?
>
Usually we write
if (!data || !sti_mbox_chan_is_tx(mbox))
>> > + mbox->irq = irq_create_mapping(mbinst->irq_domain,
>> > + mbox->rx_id);
>> >
>> simply assigning same IRQ to all controller DT nodes and using
>> IRQF_SHARED for the common handler, wouldn't work?
>
> I do have intentions to simplify this driver somewhat, but that will
> take some time as it will require a great deal of consultation and
> testing from the ST side. This is the current internal implementation
> which is used in the wild and has been fully tested. If you'll allow
> me to conduct my adaptions subsequently we can have full history and a
> possible reversion plan if anything untoward take place i.e. I mess
> something up.
>
OK, but wouldn't that break the bindings of this driver when you
eventually do that?
>> > + * struct sti_mbox_msg - sti mailbox message description
>> > + * @dsize: data payload size
>> > + * @pdata: message data payload
>> > + */
>> > +struct sti_mbox_msg {
>> > + u32 dsize;
>> > + u8 *pdata;
>> > +};
>> >
>> There isn't any client driver in this patchset to tell exactly, but it
>> seems the header could be split into one shared between mailbox
>> clients and provider and another internal to client/provider ?
>
> I believe only the above will be required by the client. Seems silly
> to create a client specific header just for that, don't you think?
>
Do you mean to have copies of the structure in controller and client driver? :O
-Jassi
--
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
