[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d51a66a0-9272-ff93-ff99-28d0928950a8@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 16:33:41 +0000
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
ALKML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Roy Franz <roy.franz@...ium.com>,
Harb Abdulhamid <harba@...eaurora.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Loc Ho <lho@....com>, Ryan Harkin <Ryan.Harkin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/20] firmware: arm_scmi: add basic driver
infrastructure for SCMI
Hi Jassi,
On 04/11/17 11:51, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> .....
>
>> +int scmi_do_xfer(const struct scmi_handle *handle, struct scmi_xfer *xfer)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + int timeout;
>> + struct scmi_info *info = handle_to_scmi_info(handle);
>> + struct device *dev = info->dev;
>> +
>> + ret = mbox_send_message(info->tx_chan, xfer);
>> ^^^^^^^^
> The call still remains unchanged and broken.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/24/502
>
Yes, since you are in favor of abstraction on top of mailbox while Arnd,
Bjorn, and me prefer to deal with that in mailbox framework itself, I
thought I will keep that discussion separate and get the remaining parts
of SCMI reviewed.
I have not forgotten about it, just trying to keep it separate. Sorry, I
could have been more specific.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists