[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190830093224.GB31297@bogus>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:32:24 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"andre.przywara@....com" <andre.przywara@....com>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: mailbox: add binding doc for the ARM
SMC/HVC mailbox
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:52:40AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:37 AM Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com> wrote:
[...]
> >
> > If I get your point correctly,
> > On UP, both could not be active. On SMP, tx/rx could be both active, anyway
> > this depends on secure firmware and Linux firmware design.
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions about arm,func-ids here?
> >
> I was thinking if this is just an instruction, why can't each channel
> be represented as a controller, i.e, have exactly one func-id per
> controller node. Define as many controllers as you need channels ?
>
I might have missed to follow this, but what's the advantage of doing so ?
Which can't single controller instance deal with all the channels ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists