On 01/11/17 22:12, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed 01 Nov 11:03 PDT 2017, Jassi Brar wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: > [..] >>> >>> This is rough idea I have on extending mailbox interface to support >>> the doorbell requirements. >>> >> What doorbell requirements does the api not support? >> QComm's APCS IPC is what you call a "doorbell" controller and is >> already supported by the API. It could run SCMI even easier than MHU >> (your controller). >> > > I agree; from a mbox consumer perspective a doorbell should be a mailbox > channel that when signalled will ring the bell, i.e. the message is not > significant and should not be provided by the client. >
Exactly. > If the message is significant and is not derived from the mailbox > channel (e.g. channel id -> bit in register) it is not a mailbox > doorbell, it's s regular mailbox used as a doorbell. > Agreed, in my case(ARM MHU) it's indeed a register bit. > > The potential improvement I see in the Qualcomm case is to wrap the > mbox_send_message(chan, NULL); mbox_client_txdone(chan, 0); calls in one > simple "mbox_ring_door_bell(chan)" - but I haven't investigated the > validity of this as a generic function. > Yes that's exactly what I want to do as we make progress with this patch. For that we find need to add send_signal(chan), instead of send_data(chan, data). -- Regards, Sudeep
