Hi Kumar,
I pulled this in to my 3.14 tree and gave it a spin. But I keep
hitting the case of unlock below telling me that someone else is
holding the lock.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> +
> +static int msm_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> +{
> + void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
> +
> + writel_relaxed(SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC, lock_addr);
You need some sort of barrier here; the caf code have a smp_mb() here,
inserting that solves the problem.
> +
> + return readl_relaxed(lock_addr) == SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC;
> +}
> +
> +static void msm_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> +{
> + u32 lock_owner;
> + void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
> +
> + lock_owner = readl_relaxed(lock_addr);
> + if (lock_owner != SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC) {
> + pr_err("%s: spinlock not owned by us (actual owner is %d)\n",
> + __func__, lock_owner);
> + }
> +
> + writel_relaxed(0, lock_addr);
> +}
> +
Part of this I think this driver looks good, it would be nice to get
the last details cleaned up so we could get it into the tree.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
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
