On 09/12/2024 09:11, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > Thanks for the review, Krzysztof! > > On 12/9/24 7:52 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 05:41:35PM +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>> Add bindings for the Samsung Exynos Mailbox Controller. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/mailbox/samsung,exynos.yaml | 70 +++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Filename based on compatible, so: >> google,gs101-acpm-mbox >> >> but then entire binding seems for different device, so you most likely >> miss here actual Exynos devices. >> > > I need some guidance here, please. The mailbox controller can pass the > mailbox messages either via its own data registers, or via SRAM (like it > is used by the ACPM protocol). > > I'm thinking of using the same driver for both cases, and differentiate > between the two by compatible and `of_device_id.data`. Thus I propose to > have a "google,gs101-acpm-mbox" compatible for the ACPM SRAM case and in > the future we may add a "google,gs101-mbox" compatible for the messages > passed via the controller's data register case. Good that you pointed it out, I was indeed wondering why this is "acpm-mbox", not "mbox in compatible. This needs to be fixed - you cannot have two compatibles for the same device. > > Given this, I shall use the more generic name for the bindings, thus > maybe "google,gs101-mbox.yaml"? But then exynos850 has the same > controller, shouldn't we just use "samsung,exynos.yaml"? If exynos850 has the same controller, then add it to the binding. Anyway then use samsung,exynos850-mbox, because samsung,exynos is way too generic. Best regards, Krzysztof
