On 22 April 2015 at 06:14, Feng Kan <f...@apm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Jassi Brar <jassisinghb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +/* Configuration and Status Registers */
>>> +struct slimpro_mbox_reg {
>>> + u32 in;
>>> + u32 din0;
>>> + u32 din1;
>>> + u32 rsvd1;
>>> + u32 out;
>>> + u32 dout0;
>>> + u32 dout1;
>>> + u32 rsvd2;
>>> + u32 status;
>>> + u32 statusmask;
>>> +};
>>> +
>> Why not the normal way of defining offset macros, like most drivers do?
> I personally don't prefer one way over another, let me know if you want me
> to change to use defines.
>
Yes please.
>>
>>> + mbox_chan_received_data(mb_chan->chan, mb_chan->rx_msg);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int slimpro_mbox_send_data(struct mbox_chan *chan, void *msg)
>>> +{
>>> + struct slimpro_mbox_chan *mb_chan = to_slimpro_mbox_chan(chan);
>>> +
>>> + mb_chan_send_msg(mb_chan, msg);
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int slimpro_mbox_startup(struct mbox_chan *chan)
>>> +{
>>> + struct slimpro_mbox_chan *mb_chan = to_slimpro_mbox_chan(chan);
>>> + int rc;
>>> +
>>> + rc = devm_request_irq(mb_chan->dev, mb_chan->irq, slimpro_mbox_irq,
>>> 0,
>>> + MBOX_CON_NAME, mb_chan);
>>>
>> You may want to use IRQF_SHARED flag here and make slimpro_mbox_irq()
>> aware of that -- some platforms tie together irq lines of all
>> instances of a resource, like dma, mbox, so they may share the same
>> irq line.
> this is an internal dedicated irq line.
>
Yes on this platform/soc it is. But some future platform that uses the
same mbox controller might choose to tie all irqs together at the cost
of slightly increased latency. However I am OK if you are. So as you
wish for now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
