On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/01/2015 11:55 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> In a system where you have two hwlock blocks lckA and lckB, each >>>> consisting of 8 locks and you have dspB that can only access lckB >>> >>> This is a good example - thanks. To be able to cope with such cases we >>> will have to pass a hwlock block reference and its relative lock id. >>> >> >> Correct, so the #hwlock-cells and hwlock part from the proposal are >> the important one. Having an optional hwlock-names will make things >> easier to read as well, but is not necessary. > > Right, if anything, it would be useful only for the clients, but the > hwspinlock core itself would not need it. So, I would forgo adding the > hwlock-names for now. > >> >>> The DT binding should definitely be prepared for such cases (just kill >>> the base-id field?), but let's see what it means about the Linux >>> implementation. >>> >> >> From the dt binding PoV, we should be able to skip num-locks as well. >> It seems most hwlock blocks have a fixed amount of locks provided and >> the drivers are reporting this to the core when registering. > > I added this originally based on the initial MSM HW Mutex block bindings. > It's not entirely correct to have this in DT for the MSM HW, as the hardware has a fixed number of mutexes. As soon as we have the binding sorted out I will follow up with a new revision of the tcsr/sfpb-mutex driver. >> >> So I think we can reduce the binding to: >> >> Providers: >> #hwlock-cells >> >> Consumers: >> hwlocks >> hwlock-names >> >> For the hardware where number of locks is actually variable (e.g. >> different variants of same block) there can be driver specific entries >> for this. > > Right, we should be able to drop this and use the driver match data. As > it is, the field is used during registration of the block with the > hwspinlock core. > If we have certain systems where it actually is a property to be configured then they can have individual properties, extending the standard set. Either way, it's not a dynamic property shared by all hwlock drivers, so it should not be in the common binding. Will you send out a new revision of the binding? I would love to get this integrated so I can move on with the dependents. 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
