On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:24:42AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.luna@xxxxxxxxxx> [121030 05:20]: > > Tony, > > > > On 29 October 2012 12:52, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> --- /dev/null > > >> +++ b/include/linux/platform_data/omap_mailbox.h > > >> @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ > > > > > > This file should only contain pure platform data needed > > > by the core omap code to pass to the mailbox driver. > > > > Ok, looking at it closely, this header file is related to the API > > itself, there is nothing that could be actually considered as pure > > platform data, the structures are related with the mailbox framework > > and even if I split this file into two, the additional header would > > end up including the "platform_data" header unless I move > > save/restore_ctx functions and then export them as symbols for the > > API. > > > > So, it might be better for the entire file to sit in > > linux/include/mailbox/ then. > > OK to me. > > > > The mailbox API header should be somewhere else, > > > like include/linux/mailbox/mailbox-omap.h or similar. > > > > Ok. > > > > > But shouldn't this all now be handled by using the > > > remoteproc framework? > > > > Remoteproc doesn't handle the mailbox hardware directly, it still > > relies in the mailbox framework for the low level communications. > > E.g.: Proc1 has a message (virtqueue msg) queued to Proc2, uses > > mailbox msg to generate an interrupt to Proc2, Proc2 queries the > > message (virtqueue) based on the mailbox message received. > > OK. > > Greg, do these patches look OK to you to move to live under > drivers/mailbox? Um, I don't know, I wasn't paying attention here, sorry. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
