Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: dt: mailbox: Add TI Message Manager

From: [email-masked] (Nishanth Menon)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:31:44 -0600

On 02/08/2016 10:14 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:

Thanks for the review.

> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Nishanth Menon <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> +
>> +       msgmgr: msgmgr at 02a00000 {
>> +               compatible = "ti,k2g-message-manager", "ti,message-manager";
>> +               #mbox-cells = <1>;
>> +               reg-names = "queue_proxy_region", "queue_state_debug_region";
>> +               reg = <0x02a00000 0x400000>, <0x028c3400 0x400>;
>> +
>> +               msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx_prio0: pmmc_tx_prio0 {
>> +                       ti,queue-id = <0>;
>> +                       ti,proxy-id = <0>;
>> +               };
>> +
>> +               msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx: pmmc_rx {
>> +                       ti,queue-id = <5>;
>> +                       ti,proxy-id = <2>;
>> +                       interrupt-names = "rx";
>> +                       interrupts = <GIC_SPI 324 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>> +               };
>> +       };
>> +
> I think we should get rid of consumer specifics from the provider node...

If I get rid of the consumer nodes, how do you propose I describe the rx
queue interrupt(s) in the msmgr dt node (Every Rx queue will have it's
own interrupt - and it cannot be reverse computed from queue ID, proxy ID)?

>> +...
>> +       pmmc {
>> +               ...
>> +               mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>> +               mboxes = <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_tx>
>> +                        <&msgmgr &msgmgr_proxy_pmmc_rx>;
>> +               ...
>> +       };
>>
> ... and have consumers like
>        pmmc {
>                ...
>                mbox-names = "tx", "rx";
>                mboxes = <&msgmgr 0 0>
>                         <&msgmgr 5 2>;
>        };
> 
> I leave the IRQ for you to decide how to specify - a 'dummy' or
> 'valid' always provided as last cell in mboxes or some other way.
> (I'll review other patches in detail later)

What do we do with the issues that Suman pointed out in the mailbox
framework itself? Could you respond to that thread[1] as well?

[1] http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=145496308418123&w=2

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon