Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: add bindings for samsung,exynos

[Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>]

On 12/9/24 8:33 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> 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.

Will fix. I followed arm,mhu, which differentiates the transfer mode,
data or doorbell, via compatible.

For the fix I'll use "#mbox-cells" as <&phandle type channel>, where
type specifies doorbel or data type. Clients will use:
	mboxes = <&ap2apm_mailbox DOORBELL 2>;
or
	mboxes = <&ap2apm_mailbox DATA 3>;

arm,mhu3 and fsl,mu pass the transfer mode in a similar way.


>> 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.

Looks the same, yes, it differs by the number of how many data registers
each has. But I'll stick to "google,gs101-mbox.yaml", as I can't test
exynos850 and I assume we can rename the file when we'll need it.