lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 08:25:30 +0530
From:	Jassi Brar <>
To:	Kevin Hilman <>
Cc:	lkml <>,
	Devicetree List <>,
	Matt Porter <>,
	Patch Tracking <>,
	Bjorn Andersson <>,
	Ashwin Chaugule <>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
	"Anna, Suman" <>,
	Loic Pallardy <>,
	LeyFoon Tan <>,
	Craig McGeachie <>,
	Courtney Cavin <>,
	Pawel Moll <>,
	Rob Herring <>,
	Mark Rutland <>,, Arnd Bergmann <>,
	Josh Cartwright <>,
	Linus Walleij <>,
	Kumar Gala <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 2/5] mailbox: Introduce framework for mailbox

On 18 June 2014 22:33, Kevin Hilman <> wrote:
> Jassi Brar <> writes:
>> On 18 June 2014 05:57, Kevin Hilman <> wrote:
>>> Jassi Brar <> writes:
>>>> Introduce common framework for client/protocol drivers and
>>>> controller drivers of Inter-Processor-Communication (IPC).
>>>> Client driver developers should have a look at
>>>>  include/linux/mailbox_client.h to understand the part of
>>>> the API exposed to client drivers.
>>>> Similarly controller driver developers should have a look
>>>> at include/linux/mailbox_controller.h
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <>
>>> This series is shaping up nicely.  The one thing I think it would
>>> benefit from, being a new common framework is something under
>>> Documentation giving a brief overview, but more importantly some
>>> example code snippets of a mailbox client using the API, and maybe an
>>> example usage of the controller API as well.
>>> Not only will that guide developers who want to use/implement this API
>>> on their platforms, it will also aid reviewers.
>> I have been trying to get it upstream for quite some time now because
>> my platform depends upon it. I am planning to submit my platform
>> support which should have a client and controller side of the mailbox
>> API.
> Having a reference implementation is great, but I don't think that
> removes the need for a bit of Documentation when introducing a new
> framework.
> It's pretty common to see new IPC mechanisms posted and being able to
> point somone to this framework and something under Documentation/* would
> be a great help in getting more users of the framework.
Of course. I didn't mean I won't add Documentation.

>> Though I am told the API (until v4 at least) supported usecases for 5
>> different platforms.
> That's great.
> I sure would like to see some more Reviewed-by tags from those folks to
> confirm that those starting to use it think it's on the right track.
The upstreaming attempts have been going on for months now, and via
non-public interactions with developers I understand it last worked
before the revision mandating DT support and ipc->mailbox symbol
renaming. So basic working should still remain the same.
   Suman(TI), Loic(ST), Girish(Samsung), Ashwin (PCC+ACPI).... guys,
any word for v7?

LFTan(Intel) and Craig(Broadcom) seem unresponsive now, unfortunately :(

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists