On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Suman Anna wrote: > Kumar, > >>> >>> On 09/03/2013 01:50 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Suman Anna wrote: >>>> >>>>> HwSpinlock IP is present only on OMAP4 and other newer SoCs, >>>>> which are all device-tree boot only. This patch adds the >>>>> base support for parsing the DT nodes, and removes the code >>>>> dealing with the traditional platform device instantiation. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt | 28 ++++++++++ >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile | 3 -- >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c | 60 ---------------------- >>>>> drivers/hwspinlock/omap_hwspinlock.c | 21 ++++++-- >>>>> 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) >>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt >>>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 0000000..adfb8ad >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ >>>>> +OMAP4+ HwSpinlock Driver >>>>> + >>>>> +Required properties: >>>>> +- compatible: Currently supports only "ti,omap4-hwspinlock" for >>>>> + OMAP44xx, OMAP54xx, AM33xx, AM43xx, DRA7xx SoCs >>>>> +- reg: Contains the hwspinlock register address range (base >>>>> + address and length) >>>>> +- ti,hwmods: Name of the hwmod associated with the hwspinlock device >>>>> + >>>>> +Optional properties: >>>>> +- base_id: Base Id for the locks for a particular hwspinlock >>>>> + device. If not mentioned, a default value of 0 is used. >>>>> + This property is mandatory ONLY if a SoC has several >>>>> + hwspinlock devices. There are currently no such OMAP >>>>> + SoCs. >>>> >>>> Should this be ti,base_id ? [ I know its kinda generic in its intent for any SoC w/multiple blocks ] >>> >>> I didn't add the "ti," prefix exactly for the same reason - it is >>> generic w.r.t the hwspinlock core irrespective of the SoC family, and >>> there is nothing ti or OMAP specific about it. I have added it to keep >>> the DT node definition in sync with the driver code. If it is too >>> generic a name, it can always be renamed as hwlock_base_id. This will be >>> SoC agnostic property for the hwspinlock driver. What do you think? >> >> I'm wondering if we should use cell-index for this purpose. > > I didn't get you completely. Do you intend to compute the base_id using > cell-index and number of locks (which may be a separate field altogether > if this information cannot be read from the h/w)? My understanding is > that cell-index is primarily used for identifying the h/w instance number. I was suggesting using cell-index instead of base_id. What we should probably due is have a devicetree/bindings/hwlock/hwlock.txt that would describe generic properties like this and just reference that in the omap binding spec. I'm thinking if we dont use cell-index, that it should probably be hwlock-base-id - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
