Re: [PATCHv8 2/2] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On 16/07/14 12:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 July 2014 12:16:50 Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>> Agreed if these mbox-names are more specific to attached devices and that
>> was my initial understanding too. But I got confused when I saw something
>> like below in the patch[1]
>>
>> +       mhu: mhu0@2b1f0000 {
>> +               #mbox-cells = <1>;
>> +               compatible = "fujitsu,mhu";
>> +               reg = <0 0x2B1F0000 0x1000>;
>> +               interrupts = <0 36 4>, /* LP Non-Sec */
>> +                            <0 35 4>, /* HP Non-Sec */
>> +                            <0 37 4>; /* Secure */
>> +       };
>> +
>> +       mhu_client: scb@0 {
>> +               compatible = "fujitsu,scb";
>> +               mbox = <&mhu 1>;
>> +               mbox-names = "HP_NonSec";
>> +       };
>>
>> Here the name used is more controller specific.
>
> The name is definitely specific to the client, not the master. The

IIUC this controller has 3 channels: Secure, High and Low Priority Non 
Secure.
I assumed the name is derived from that rather than what the client is
using it for, hence the confusion. That might be fine but I am more 
interested
what will be the name if another client uses the same channel in the above
example.

Regards,
Sudeep

> string "HP_NonSec" should be required in the binding for the "fujitsu,scb"
> device here, and the scb driver should pass that hardcoded string
> to the mailbox API to ask for a channel.
>
> 	Arnd
>
>