Hi Ohad, On 07/03/2014 02:15 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > Hi Suman, > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> Do we have a use case today that require the xlate() method? >>> >>> If not, let's remove it as we could always add it back if some new >>> hardware shows up that needs it. >> >> The xlate() method is to support the phandle + args specifier way of >> requesting hwlocks, platform implementations are free to implement their >> own xlate functions, but the above supports the simplest case of >> controller + relative lock index within controller. > > Do we have a use case for a different implementation other than the > simplest case? If not, it seems to me this will just become redundant > boilerplate code (every platform will use the simple xlate method). Not at the moment, with the existing platform implementations. So, if I understand you correctly, you are asking to leave out the xlate ops and make the of_hwspin_lock_simple_xlate() internal until a need for an xlate method arises. This also means, we only support a value of 1 for #hwlock-cells. > >> This function again is to support the phandle + args specifier way of >> requesting hwlocks, the hwspin_lock_request_specific() is invoked >> internally within this function, so we are still reusing the actual >> request code other than handling the DT parsing portion. If we go back >> to using global locks in client hwlocks property, we don't need a >> of_hwspin_lock_get_id(), the same can be achieved using the existing DT >> function, of_property_read_u32_index(). > > I think you may have misunderstood me, sorry. I'm ok with the phandle > + args specifier. I just think we can use it, together with the > base_id property, to infer the global lock id from the DT data. Aah ok, its minor code rearrangement for what you are asking - I just need to leave out invoking the request_specific invocation in the OF request specific existing function, just return the global id and let the client users call the normal request_specific API themselves. But, that would mean DT-based client users would have to invoke two function calls to request a hwspinlock. We already have an API to get the lock id given a hwspinlock - hwspin_lock_get_id(), so I added the OF API for requesting a lock directly rather than giving an OF API for getting the lock id. This is in keeping in convention with what other drivers do normally - a regular get and an OF get. I can modify it if you still prefer the OF API for getting a global lock id, but I feel its a burden for client users. Also, do you prefer an open property-name in client users (like I am doing at the moment) or imposing a standard property name "hwlocks"? regards Suman > This is not only a must to support heterogenous multi-processing systems, > it will also substantially simplify the code. > > Thanks, > Ohad. > -- 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
