Hi Vaibhav, Somehow I missed this mail. On 2 May 2012 00:42, Bedia, Vaibhav <vaibhav.bedia@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Omar, > > On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 23:17:38, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote: >> To allow mailbox driver to function with device tree. >> >> Tested in OMAP4 and OMAP3. OMAP2 untested. >> > > I think the mailbox code needs a cleanup similar to what you > had proposed earlier [1] before the device tree support is added. I believe the cleanup needs to be there, but this is generic enough to support DT as it is. > We probably need to decide whether the number of mailbox sub-modules > should be part of hwmod attribute or come from device tree. All the data is currently coming from hwmod, so I don't see why this must be split now between hwmod and DT, but I'm open for suggestions. > IMO the > static allocation of the mailboxes is better suited in the device-tree > data. If possible I wouldn't want to tie use case specifics to DT or hwmod, the whole point for the cleanup was to allow a dynamic mailbox allocation and not statically assign them. Regards, Omar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
