On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:04 PM Jim Quinlan <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:50 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 03:59:06PM -0400, Jim Quinlan wrote: > > > Bindings are added. Only one interrupt is needed because > > > we do not yet employ the SCMI p2a channel. > > > > I still don't understand what this is. To repeat from v1: I thought SCMI > > was a mailbox consumer, not provider? > > Hi Rob, > > I'm not sure where I am implying that SCMI is a mailbox provider? > Should I not mention "SCMI" in the subject line? > > This is just a mailbox driver, "consumed" by SCMI. Our SCMI DT node > looks like this: > > brcm_scmi_mailbox: brcm_scmi_mailbox@0 { > #mbox-cells = <1>; > compatible = "brcm,brcmstb-mbox"; > }; > > brcm_scmi@0 { > compatible = "arm,scmi"; > mboxes = <&brcm_scmi_mailbox 0>;; > mbox-names = "tx"; > shmem = <&NWMBOX>; > /* ... */ > };
Okay, that makes more sense. Though it seems like this is just adding a pointless level of indirection to turn an interrupt into a mailbox. There's nothing more to 'the mailbox' is there? So why not either allow SCMI to have an interrupt directly or have a generic irq mailbox driver? Rob
