On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jassi, > > Thanks for review. > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:22:01PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > >> > For easily extending for Hisilicon series SoCs (SoCs may have difference >> > for register's definition with each other), so firstly implement common >> > mailbox driver; this common mailbox driver provides three mainly >> > functionality: >> > >> > - help register channels into framework; >> > - hook low level callback functions for register's operations; >> > - Enhance rx channel's message queue, which is based on the code in >> > drivers/mailbox/omap-mailbox.c. >> > >> Not cool. >> Please don't reinvent the wheel by having platform specific >> implementation of the mailbox api. Which vendor doesn't plan to roll >> out new SoCs, and hence variations of mailbox controllers? The OMAP >> stack predates the common api, and was actually supposed to be >> converted over eventually. Please implement just the >> drivers/mailbox/hi6220-mailbox.c (preferably by the name of the >> mailbox controller, if any) > > Understood. Here i have one question, the rx channel's message queue is > looks like a common mechanism and can be added into framework file > mailbox.c, then Soc driver file can _ONLY_ focus on register level's > operations. If so, the common driver in this patch also is unnecessary. > Yes, that's what I say, no 'common' driver for a platform. > Do you suggest to use upper method to rework patches? Or just think > it's okay to implement rx channel's message queue in hi6220-mailbox.c? > The code in drivers/mailbox/ should only manage the controller (registers and interrupts). Everything else (queues, shmem etc) should be in platform specific client driver(s). -- 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
