On Wednesday 03 September 2014 15:49:21 Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 01:23:21PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 02 September 2014 16:15:05 Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > > > > Right. At least not in a way DT does. PCC clients know if something > > > needs to be written/read via PCC mailbox and can identify a PCC > > > subspace. (i.e. Mailbox channel). The PCC mailbox is uniquely > > > identified/defined in the spec. > > > > #define ACPI_ADR_SPACE_PLATFORM_COMM (acpi_adr_space_type) 10 > > > > So we could use this ID instead of a string and use that to look up > > > the PCC controller for a PCC client. > > > I didn't realize this was the case. Does that mean we can treat > > pcc as a linearly accessible address space the way we do for > > system memory, pci-config etc? > > > If that works, we should probably just have a regmap for it rather > > than expose the mailbox API to client drivers. > > A regmap doesn't seem to map very well here - as far as I can tell the > addresses referred to are mailboxes rather than registers or memory > addresses. I could be misunderstanding though. No, I think you are right. Nevermind then. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
