Hi Bjorn, On 02/05/2015 05:01 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > 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. Yep, will do as soon as I hear from Ohad on what to do with the patch "hwspinlock/core: maintain a list of registered hwspinlock banks" that I dropped from v7. Without that and dropping hwlock-base-id, I can't get the translations done. regards Suman -- 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
