On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:47 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I fear that setting a precedent of using the mbox for user-level > > configuration management would mean that we would have to > > treat each of these interfaces as an ABI, which in turn requires > > much deeper review as well as raising the fundamental question > > on how this should be done across drivers. The mailbox interface > > seem inherently nonportable to other hardware here, which is > > a significant downside. > > Hi Arnd > > You might want to go look at the Freescale DPAA2. They also want to > add an ioctl to pass binary blob commands to their firmware. The > patches were re-posted recently. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/5/873 > > When this was first posted, i strongly argued against it. > You also commented about this: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/24/29 > > We need to consistent here. I think it is a bad idea. I agree, and this is exactly why I commented here. I just wanted to first ensure that it's not me misunderstanding the scope and intention of the interfaces here before I say it's a mistake. Arnd
