Hi Bjorn, On 09/26/2014 09:40 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >> This patch adds three new OF helper functions to use/request >> locks from a hwspinlock device instantiated through a >> device-tree blob. >> > > Hi Ohad, Suman > > I'm about to send out some patches that depends on this functionality, > how do we move forward? > > I still think it's wrong to not return -EPROBE_DEFER, but I much > rather have the code returning NULL than not having it in the tree (we > can always argue about it later...). > > @Suman, do you remember if there was any other comments on the patch? I have posted two further revisions of this series, the latest is v6 [1]. I added additional patches in v5 that added the concept of reserved locks, and I have posted them as a separate RFC [2] for v6 so as to not block the core DT support. In anycase, the latest v6 version does not define the of_hwspin_lock_request_specific() function anymore, and it is replaced with of_hwspin_lock_get_id() function, based on Ohad's review comments on v5, and I did add the support for -EPROBE_DEFER in this API, without changing any of the existing return code conventions. I am yet to receive any comments on v6, but that series should address both your need for a probe deferral and Ohad's request to not change any return types. Please give it a try and let me know if you have any comments. regards Suman [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=141055365513902&w=2 [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=141055554214657&w=2 > > @Ohad, do you object merging Suman's patch in it's current form? I > think it should still apply cleanly. > > 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
