On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:27:48AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On 15 February 2014 09:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:02:07AM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 8 February 2014 06:20, Courtney Cavin <courtney.cavin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > There is currently no common framework for mailbox drivers, so this is my > >> > attempt to come up with something suitable. There seems to be a need for > >> > making this generic, so I have attempted to do just that. Most of this is > >> > modeled pretty strongly after the pwm core, with some influences from the clock > >> > core. > >> > > >> > Looking at the existing use-cases, and some new ones, it would appear that the > >> > requirements here are rather simple. We need essentially two things for > >> > consumers: > >> > - put_message > >> > - callback for receiving messages > >> > > >> > The code currently uses atomic notifiers for callbacks. The common omap core > >> > deals with fifos and work-queues in order to escape atomic contexts, but from > >> > what I can see, this is unneeded. I am also of the opinion that the contexts > >> > can be much better managed in the drivers which are working with these > >> > contexts, rather than generically. > >> > > >> > Hopefully this will be suitable for the plethora of other drivers around the > >> > kernel which implement mailboxes, as well. In any case, I'm rather interested > >> > to see what the rest of the world thinks. > >> > > >> > Keep in mind that while the pl320 & omap code should compile, I don't currently > >> > have a platform on which I can perform proper testing. I also removed the > >> > context save/restore code from omap2 mailbox support, because I think it should > >> > be able to be done via driver suspend/resume, but haven't done a full > >> > investigation just yet. > >> > > >> > I'm also aware that breaking omap, just to fix it again probably isn't the best > >> > course of action, and I'm open to suggestions. > >> > > >> Did you try to look up the history of mailbox api development? Google > >> search: 'mailbox common api' > >> > >> I (Linaro/Fujitsu), Suman Anna (TI), LeyFoon Tan (Intel), Craig > >> McGeachie(Broadcom) and Loic Pallardy(ST) already worked a generic > >> Mailbox framework and infact have controller drivers working over > >> them. > >> For some confidentiality and some lazy and some confusion or whatever > >> reasons the final version of drivers and API wasn't submitted upstream > >> yet. > > > > Then, in all reality, it doesn't exist at all, and so, we will evaluate > > this submission instead. > > > > Just because you all can't send something for merging, doesn't mean you > > get to block someone else who has got their act together, that's not > > fair. > > > Yup probably not much fair. But then also one usually look for any > early development efforts. IIRC only I and Anna started. Others later > joined us looking at archives. Not to vindicate our gang though. > > Now we could either punish us and have this api tread the same > development path where everyone had their requirements (and the > only-waiting-for-approval controller drivers to convert) .... OR we > could see if our/original/old API just works for the purposes of Sony > as well (which it will most probably) and then we could upstream it > with one more 'works-for-me-too'. What is stopping you submitting your patches right now? -- 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
