Hi Tan, On 06/14/2013 04:32 AM, LF.Tan wrote: > > Hi Suman > > Thanks for your reply. > I have took a look the patches you've mentioned in [1]. It is totally > new framework from what is located in linux-next git tree now. Yes, that is correct. The framework is different, but functionality wise, you should be able to achieve the same (and a bit more). > Is this going to be final version for the framework? I am going to start > to develop the mailbox driver soon and I hope I can use the framework > which is stable (at least not the major changes). Do you think I should > start development based on [1]? Jassi is working through a newer version of the patches, so there would be minor changes once the newer patchset is ready, but the core framework/functionality shouldn't change much from above. Do take a look at the framework (much of the explaination in header files) and see how it fits your driver needs. regards Suman > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx > <mailto:s-anna@xxxxxx>> wrote: > > Tan, > > On 06/13/2013 06:01 AM, LF.Tan wrote: > > Hi > > I would like to add a new mailbox driver with this mailbox framework. > > May I know this mailbox framework will available in kernel v3.10 or it > > is pushed to v3.11? > > > > Thanks. > > This framework is dropped from v3.10 as this is being reworked and will > be replaced with a different one that adds atomic context and tx > callback support [1]. Jassi is working on a newer patchset currently for > this, but you should be able to get started using [1]. > > regards > Suman > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136782509309470&w=2 > > > > > On Friday 03 May 2013 15:39:42 Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@xxxxxxxx > <mailto:a...@xxxxxxxx> > > <mailto:a...@xxxxxxxx <mailto:a...@xxxxxxxx>>> wrote: > >> > On Thursday 02 May 2013 17:09:07 Suman Anna wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I do not know how much of an impact it is for the ST driver as the > >> >> series adds the driver, and would have to wait until the RFC > is sorted > >> >> out otherwise. > >> > > >> > I think I'd prefer to drop the branch from the 3.10 queue then > >> > and let you all work out a common approach for 3.11. Olof, any > >> > other input? > >> > >> This will block all refactoring of the PRCMU driver, which Loic > >> is working on, and also Ulf Hansson's clock driver. It is basically > >> the key to breaking that driver apart and distributing it out into > >> the proper subsystems. Loic has a big patch series for that > >> for next merge window which will then have to be postponed, > >> or queued on top of the mailbox work when finished. > >> > >> But maybe it's the right thing to do if the subsystem needs more > >> work? I have no clear opinion on this, Loic, Ulf? > > > >> I think we can queue them together. I'm certainly fine with the > >> mailbox subsystem getting merged through both the mfd and arm-soc > >> trees to avoid conflicts. > > > >> Arnd > > -- 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
