On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Felipe Balbi <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 03:57:42PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> Indeed, that was my understanding, but the mailbox doesn't seem to be >> designed that way. Apparently the driver has an internal linked list >> of mailboxes, and the platform device registers a bunch of them. >> Effectively they need each other. > > you could make it the other way around. For each registered > platform_device you instantiate one mailbox and add it to the list on > the fly, you would probably like to use a list_head for that also > instead of having your own list implementation. > > if you do that, you leave the mbox "instantiation" up to the > platform_device code. You would simply register several omap-mbox with a > different id for each mbox you need. Then the name could be sent using a > well-defined platform_data. Just a suggestion. First, this is not my code (sounds like you are assuming so). Now, I thought on doing something like what you suggest, but since I haven't done anything like it, I thought on asking for ideas just so I don't end up doing something stupid. Making multiple platform_device sounds appealing, but the problem is that there's no 1-to-1 mapping from resources to mailboxes. For example, all mailboxes seem to share the same memory, and some mailboxes use the same irq. I don't know if multiple platform_devices can share the same resources. What I ended up doing is store all the mailboxes in the platform data. I didn't know how to store an array of pointers in the pdata, so I created my own structure for that: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/34916 You can check the whole patch series here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/34912 Thanks for the comments. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
