Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried to recall or find where this restriction originally comes from, and I couldn't. @lgirdwood could you remind please? I'll make sure to make a note this time.
I think this restriction comes from the original IPC protocol from the alternative firmware implementation? Currently size limits seem to be set in the firmware by
MAILBOX_HOSTBOX_SIZE/MAILBOX_DSPBOX_SIZEmacros, for which the smallest value I found was 1024. Is this complete area usable as a mailbox or is a part of it used for other purposes? So, I'd go straight with the largest possible value here. Of course, it has to be reflected in the firmware too.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@lyakh it was discussed on FW PR:
thesofproject/sof#2216
Currently it cannot be set to the largest possible value but it will later with some changes to ipc msg allocations
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@abonislawski ok, got it, thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
how does this work if a new kernel using a max size of 768 is used with an old firmware relying on a value of 384?
And why not 1K while we've at it? or 4K as in the past?