On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +0000, Suman Anna wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
> >> a module param option if needed?
> >
> > I'm not sure I'm following.
> >
> > If the main point of contention is the base_id field, I'm also fine
> > with removing it entirely, as I'm not aware of any actual user for it
> > (Suman please confirm?).
>
> Yeah, well the current implementations that I am aware of only have a
> single bank, so all of them would be using a value of 0. I am yet to see
> a platform with multiple instances where the property really makes a
> difference. v7 has the property mandatory, so all the implementations
> would need to define this value even if it is 0.
>
> regards
> Suman
>
> >
> > Mark? Rob? Will you accept Suman's patches if the base_id field is removed?
My concern is that the mapping of hwspinlock IDs doesn't seem to be
explicit in the DT on a per-context basis, which is what I'd expect.
e.g.
lck: hwspinlock-device@f00 {
...
#hwlock-cells = <1>;
};
some-other-os-interface {
...
hwlocks = <&lck 0>, <&lck 1>, <&lck 2>, <&lck 3>;
hwlock-names = "glbl", "pool0", "pool1", "pool2";
};
a-different-os-interface {
...
hwlocks = <&lck 18>, <&lck 21>, <&lck 4>, <&lck 5>;
hwlock-names = "init", "teardown", "pool0", "pool1";
};
That's the only way I would expect this to possibly remain a stable
over time, and it's the entire reason for #hwlock-cells, no?
How do you expect the other components sharing the hwspinlocks to be
described?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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
