On 08/22/2016 08:17 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:43:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday, August 19, 2016 7:32:23 PM CEST Thierry Reding wrote:
+static int tegra_hsp_doorbell_send_data(struct tegra_hsp_channel *channel,
+ void *data)
+{
+ tegra_hsp_channel_writel(channel, 1, HSP_DB_TRIGGER);
+
+ return 0;
+}
It seems very odd that you don't write the data at all but just trigger
the communication here. My interpretation is that you bypass
the mailbox infrastructure for the actual message, and instead reimplement
it on top of the mailbox infrastructure as part of the bpmp driver.
Why not expose the bpmp itself as the mailbox here?
My understanding is that doorbell doesn't provide any means to transfer
data. It merely signals the availability of data. It is up to a use-case
specific implementation to arrange for the transport of data.
Yes, the doorbell doesn't transfer any data.
BPMP implements a shmem-based protocol and uses the doorbell merely as a
mechanism for the BPMP and CPU to signal each other when data is ready.
Exposing the BPMP as the mailbox could possibly be done, but it would
implement a fairly large software layer in the mailbox system which is
targetted primarily at simple mailbox hardware that exchanges small
amounts of data (usually fitting into 32 bits). mailbox-sti is another
driver that uses the framework only to signal, so this doesn't seem to
be a mechanism exclusive to Tegra.
I also don't think that in-memory IPC mechanisms are what the mailbox
subsystem is all about; it's about pure HW mechanisms that transfer data.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
