Hi Suman,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote:
> +int of_hwspin_lock_get_id(struct device_node *np, int index)
> +{
> + struct hwspinlock_device *bank;
> + struct of_phandle_args args;
> + int id;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "hwlocks", "#hwlock-cells", index,
> + &args);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&hwspinlock_tree_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(bank, &hwspinlock_devices, list)
> + if (bank->dev->of_node == args.np)
> + break;
> + mutex_unlock(&hwspinlock_tree_lock);
> + if (&bank->list == &hwspinlock_devices) {
> + ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> + goto out;
> + }
Is this the validation you mentioned which requires the existence of
"hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks" ?
I'm not convinced this is needed for several reasons:
- the user isn't using the lock yet at this point, and may only need
the id in order to communicate it to a remote processor
- if the user will try to use the lock prematurely,
hwspin_lock_request_specific should stop her
- moreover, hwspin_lock_request_specific must be the one who validates
the id, since in heterogeneous systems the user may get the id from a
remote processor and not via of_hwspin_lock_get_id
"hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks"
adds complexity which must be very strongly justified.
If we're not sure there is a strong justification for it, we better
not merge it.
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_hwspin_lock_get_base_id);
...
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_hwspin_lock_get_num_locks);
Do we really must expose these two helpers globally?
Can we instead make these "static inline" methods and embed them in
hwspinlock_internal.h ?
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
