On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2024 10:58:07 MESZ Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 20/05/2024 17:11, Luca Weiss wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof > > > > Ack, sounds good. > > > > Maybe also from you, any opinion between these two binding styles? > > > > So first using index of mboxes for the numbering, where for the known > > usages the first element (and sometimes the 3rd - ipc-2) are empty <>. > > > > The second variant is using mbox-names to get the correct channel-mbox > > mapping. > > > > - qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>; > > - qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>; > > - qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>; > > + mboxes = <0>, <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>; > > > > vs. > > > > - qcom,ipc-1 = <&apcs 8 13>; > > - qcom,ipc-2 = <&apcs 8 9>; > > - qcom,ipc-3 = <&apcs 8 19>; > > + mboxes = <&apcs 13>, <&apcs 9>, <&apcs 19>; > > + mbox-names = "ipc-1", "ipc-2", "ipc-3"; > > Sorry, don't get, ipc-1 is the first mailbox, so why would there be <0> > in first case? Actually not, ipc-0 would be permissible by the driver, used for the 0th host e.g. from: /* Iterate over all hosts to check whom wants a kick */ for (host = 0; host < smsm->num_hosts; host++) { hostp = &smsm->hosts[host]; Even though no mailbox is specified in any upstream dts for this 0th host I didn't want the bindings to restrict that, that's why in the first example there's an empty element (<0>) for the 0th smsm host > Anyway, the question is if you need to know that some > mailbox is missing. But then it is weird to name them "ipc-1" etc. In either case we'd just query the mbox (either by name or index) and then see if it's there? Not quite sure I understand the sentence.. Pretty sure either binding would work the same way. Regards Luca > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > >