On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 3:38 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, Jassi, > > On 1/3/25 9:57 AM, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > >>> Then I updated the mailbox core to allow clients to request channels by > >>> passing some args containing channel identifiers to the controllers, > >>> that the controllers xlate() using their own method. > >>> > >> This is unnecessary. > >> If you don't pass the doorbell number from DT, each channel populated > >> by the driver is just a s/w construct or a 'virtual' channel. Make use > >> of 'void *data' in send_data() to specify the doorbell. > >> > > I think this introduces concurrency problems if the channel identifiers > > passed by 'void *data' don't match the virtual channel used for sending > > the messages. Do we want to allow this? > > > > Also, if we use 'void *data' to pass channel identifiers, the channel > > checks will have to be made at send_data() time. Thus if passing wrong > > channel type for example, the mailbox client will eventually get a > > -ENOBUFS and a "Try increasing MBOX_TX_QUEUE_LEN" message, which I find > > misleading. > > Shall I still use 'void *data' to pass channel identifiers through > send_data()? I'd like to respin everything. > Yes, please do. thanks
