On 15 February 2014 09:41, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Nothing. I'll freshen it up and submit today. Thanks. -- 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
