Hi all,

This patch series introduces support for the APM-to-AP mailbox on the 
Exynos850 SoC. This mailbox is required for communicating with the APM 
co-processor using ACPM.

The Exynos850 mailbox operates similarly to the existing gs101 
implementation, but the register offsets and IRQ mask bits differ. 
This series abstracts these differences into platform-specific data 
structures matched via the device tree.

Also, it requires APM-to-AP mailbox clock in CMU_APM block.

In theory this can be split into two series with correct dependecies:
device tree node requires clock changes to be merged. The suggestion
is to let this go through Samsung SoC tree with corresponding acks
if it is okay.

Will be great if it can be tested on gs101 to make sure that I didn't
break anything, I don't have dev gs101 devices.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>
---
Alexey Klimov (5):
      dt-bindings: clock: exynos850: Add APM_AP MAILBOX clock
      clk: samsung: exynos850: Add APM-to-AP mailbox clock
      dt-bindings: mailbox: google,gs101-mbox: Add samsung,exynos850-mbox
      mailbox: exynos: Add support for Exynos850 mailbox
      arm64: dts: exynos850: Add ap2apm mailbox

 .../bindings/mailbox/google,gs101-mbox.yaml        |  4 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850.dtsi          |  9 +++
 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos850.c                |  7 ++-
 drivers/mailbox/exynos-mailbox.c                   | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++-
 include/dt-bindings/clock/exynos850.h              |  1 +
 5 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 785f0eb2f85decbe7c1ef9ae922931f0194ffc2e
change-id: 20260320-exynos850-ap2apm-mailbox-cff0c8d69898

Best regards,
-- 
Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@linaro.org>

On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 09:15:12PM +0000, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This patch series introduces support for the APM-to-AP mailbox on the 
> Exynos850 SoC. This mailbox is required for communicating with the APM 
> co-processor using ACPM.
> 
> The Exynos850 mailbox operates similarly to the existing gs101 
> implementation, but the register offsets and IRQ mask bits differ. 
> This series abstracts these differences into platform-specific data 
> structures matched via the device tree.
> 
> Also, it requires APM-to-AP mailbox clock in CMU_APM block.
> 
> In theory this can be split into two series with correct dependecies:
> device tree node requires clock changes to be merged. The suggestion
> is to let this go through Samsung SoC tree with corresponding acks
> if it is okay.

I don't understand why this cannot be split into two seris
*practically*. What is exactly the dependency between mailbox and DTS,
that it had to be combined here?


Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Sat Mar 21, 2026 at 10:44 AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 09:15:12PM +0000, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This patch series introduces support for the APM-to-AP mailbox on the 
>> Exynos850 SoC. This mailbox is required for communicating with the APM 
>> co-processor using ACPM.
>> 
>> The Exynos850 mailbox operates similarly to the existing gs101 
>> implementation, but the register offsets and IRQ mask bits differ. 
>> This series abstracts these differences into platform-specific data 
>> structures matched via the device tree.
>> 
>> Also, it requires APM-to-AP mailbox clock in CMU_APM block.
>> 
>> In theory this can be split into two series with correct dependecies:
>> device tree node requires clock changes to be merged. The suggestion
>> is to let this go through Samsung SoC tree with corresponding acks
>> if it is okay.
>
> I don't understand why this cannot be split into two seris
> *practically*. What is exactly the dependency between mailbox and DTS,
> that it had to be combined here?

Do you suggest to send 3 single patches with proper dependencies
description? DT bindings change first, then mailbox change that specifically
depends on dt-bindings change and then dts update (which will depend on both)?

I thought that mbox driver change depends implicitly on bindings update?

Best regards,
Alexey

On 02/04/2026 04:19, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> On Sat Mar 21, 2026 at 10:44 AM GMT, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 09:15:12PM +0000, Alexey Klimov wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This patch series introduces support for the APM-to-AP mailbox on the 
>>> Exynos850 SoC. This mailbox is required for communicating with the APM 
>>> co-processor using ACPM.
>>>
>>> The Exynos850 mailbox operates similarly to the existing gs101 
>>> implementation, but the register offsets and IRQ mask bits differ. 
>>> This series abstracts these differences into platform-specific data 
>>> structures matched via the device tree.
>>>
>>> Also, it requires APM-to-AP mailbox clock in CMU_APM block.
>>>
>>> In theory this can be split into two series with correct dependecies:
>>> device tree node requires clock changes to be merged. The suggestion
>>> is to let this go through Samsung SoC tree with corresponding acks
>>> if it is okay.
>>
>> I don't understand why this cannot be split into two seris
>> *practically*. What is exactly the dependency between mailbox and DTS,
>> that it had to be combined here?
> 
> Do you suggest to send 3 single patches with proper dependencies
> description? DT bindings change first, then mailbox change that specifically
> depends on dt-bindings change and then dts update (which will depend on both)?
> 
> I thought that mbox driver change depends implicitly on bindings update?

Please don't answer to a question with a question. Actually three
questions. If you cannot give argument why there is a dependency, feels
to me like you send something you do not understand.

Best regards,
Krzysztof