On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ST's platforms currently support a maximum of 5 Mailboxes, one for > > each of the supported co-processors situated on the platform. Each > > Mailbox is divided up into 4 instances which consist of 32 channels. > > Messages are passed between the application and co-processors using > > shared memory areas. It is the Client's responsibility to manage > > these areas. > > > Thanks. It's a lot better than the old driver. However a few nits as usual :) Never a problem. :) > > + > > +#define STI_MBOX_INST_MAX 4 /* RAM saving: Max supported instances */ > > > Above you say 5 instances. Another u32 doesn't cost much. 4 instances, 5 mailboxes. > > +#define STI_MBOX_CHAN_MAX 20 /* RAM saving: Max supported channels */ > > + > This assumption is reasonable. > > > + > > +static void sti_mbox_enable_channel(struct mbox_chan *chan) > > +{ > > + struct sti_channel *chan_info = chan->con_priv; > > + struct sti_mbox_device *mdev = chan_info->mdev; > > + struct sti_mbox_pdata *pdata = dev_get_platdata(mdev->dev); > > + unsigned int instance = chan_info->instance; > > + unsigned int channel = chan_info->channel; > > + unsigned long flags; > > + void __iomem *base; > > + > > + base = mdev->base + (instance * sizeof(u32)); > > + > Maybe have something simpler like MBOX_BASE(instance)? Or some inline > function to avoid this 5-lines ritual? I think some of the functions also make use of the intermediary pointers, but I'll look into it. > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&sti_mbox_chan_lock, flags); > > + mdev->enabled[instance] |= BIT(channel); > > + writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + pdata->ena_set); > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sti_mbox_chan_lock, flags); > > > You don't need locking for SET/CLR type registers which are meant for > when they could be accessed by processors that can not share a lock. > So maybe drop the lock here and elsewhere. Okay. > However, you need some mechanism to check if you succeeded 'owning' > the channel by reading back what you write to own the channel (not > sure which is that register here). Usually we need that action and > verification when we assign a channel to some user. I don't think there is a technical reason why it wouldn't succeed. We don't normally read back every register change me make. Why is this IP different? > > +static int sti_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *data) > > +{ > > + struct sti_channel *chan_info = chan->con_priv; > > + struct sti_mbox_device *mdev = chan_info->mdev; > > + struct sti_mbox_pdata *pdata = dev_get_platdata(mdev->dev); > > + unsigned int instance = chan_info->instance; > > + unsigned int channel = chan_info->channel; > > + void __iomem *base; > > + > > + if (!sti_mbox_tx_is_ready(chan)) > > + return -EBUSY; > This is the first thing I look out for in every new driver :) this > check is unnecessary. In what way? What if the channel is disabled or there is an IRQ already pending? > > +static void sti_mbox_shutdown_chan(struct mbox_chan *chan) > > +{ > > + struct sti_channel *chan_info = chan->con_priv; > > + struct mbox_controller *mbox = chan_info->mdev->mbox; > > + int i; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < mbox->num_chans; i++) > > + if (chan == &mbox->chans[i]) > > + break; > > + > > + if (mbox->num_chans == i) { > > + dev_warn(mbox->dev, "Request to free non-existent channel\n"); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + sti_mbox_disable_channel(chan); > > + sti_mbox_clear_irq(chan); > > + > > + /* Reset channel */ > > + memset(chan, 0, sizeof(*chan)); > > + chan->mbox = mbox; > > + chan->txdone_method = TXDONE_BY_POLL; > > > No please. mbox_chan is owned by the API. At most you could clear con_priv. I will look for the API call to reset the channel then. > > +static struct mbox_chan *sti_mbox_xlate(struct mbox_controller *mbox, > > + const struct of_phandle_args *spec) > > +{ > > + struct sti_mbox_device *mdev = dev_get_drvdata(mbox->dev); > > + struct sti_mbox_pdata *pdata = dev_get_platdata(mdev->dev); > > + struct sti_channel *chan_info; > > + struct mbox_chan *chan = NULL; > > + unsigned int instance = spec->args[0]; > > + unsigned int channel = spec->args[1]; > > + unsigned int direction = spec->args[2]; > > + int i; > > + > > + /* Bounds checking */ > > + if (instance >= pdata->num_inst || channel >= pdata->num_chan) { > > + dev_err(mbox->dev, > > + "Invalid channel requested instance: %d channel: %d\n", > > + instance, channel); > > + return NULL; > > + } > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < mbox->num_chans; i++) { > > + chan_info = mbox->chans[i].con_priv; > > + > > + /* Is requested channel free? */ > > + if (direction != MBOX_LOOPBACK && > > + chan_info && > > + mbox->dev == chan_info->mdev->dev && > > + instance == chan_info->instance && > > + channel == chan_info->channel) { > > + dev_err(mbox->dev, "Channel in use\n"); > > + return NULL; > > + } > > + > > + /* Find the first free slot */ > > + if (!chan && !chan_info) > > + chan = &mbox->chans[i]; > shouldn't it break out of loop here? Yes, I guess it should. Good spot. > > + } > > + > Doesn't mbox->chans[i].con_priv need some locking here? I can add some. > > +static const struct sti_mbox_pdata mbox_stih407_pdata = { > > + .num_inst = 4, > > + .num_chan = 32, > > + .irq_val = 0x04, > > + .irq_set = 0x24, > > + .irq_clr = 0x44, > > + .ena_val = 0x64, > > + .ena_set = 0x84, > > + .ena_clr = 0xa4, > > > Register offsets are parameters of the controller And this is a controller driver? Not sure I get the point. > and also these look ugly. Please make these #define's Sure. > > +static int __init sti_mbox_init(void) > > +{ > > + return platform_driver_register(&sti_mbox_driver); > > +} > > + > > +static void __exit sti_mbox_exit(void) > > +{ > > + platform_driver_unregister(&sti_mbox_driver); > > +} > > + > > +postcore_initcall(sti_mbox_init); > > > This seems fragile. Shouldn't the users defer probe if they don't get a channel? I'm not sure why we have to be early. I will investigate. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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