On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:39:01AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 27 August 2014 20:09:02 Mark Brown wrote: > > That certainly looks like what it's doing. Probably also make the name > > that gets passed in const while you're at it. > The mailbox API intentionally does not have an interface for > that: you are supposed to get a reference to an mbox controller > from a phandle or similar, not by knowing the name of the controller. Right, and what he's trying to work around here is that ACPI has chosen to provide a generic binding for some mailboxes which isn't associated with anything we represent as a device and he doesn't want to provide that device as a Linux virtual thing. > Unfortunately, the three patches that Ashwin posted don't have a > caller for this function, so I don't know what it's actually used for. > Why do we need this function for pcc, and what are the names that > can be passed here? AFAICT the names he's interested in will be defined by the ACPI specs. It does seem like we should be providing a device for the controller and then either using references in ACPI to look it up if they exist or a lookup function for this particular namespace that goes and fetches the device we created and looks up in its context.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
