On Tue 30 Sep 14:48 PDT 2014, Suman Anna wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
Thanks for the review, I didn't find the generic binding until after I sent
this out.
> On 09/29/2014 11:35 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
[..]
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/qcom-hwspinlock.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/qcom-hwspinlock.txt
[..]
> > +- qcom,num-locks:
> > + Usage: required
> > + Value type: <u32>
> > + Definition: the number of locks/mutex available in this block
>
> Please use the common hwlock-num-locks property defined in the common
> bindings, instead of a qcom specific property name.
>
I'll update this and send out a new version as soon as the generic binding have
settled.
> > +
> > +Example:
> > +
> > + hwlock@fd484000 {
> > + compatible = "qcom,tcsr-mutex";
> > + reg = <0xfd484000 0x1000>;
> > + reg-names = "mutex-base";
> > + qcom,num-locks = <32>;
>
> You also need to add the #hwlock-cells = <1>, without which you won't be
> able to parse a client user's lock id.
>
Yeah, I noticed.
[..]
> > diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c b/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c
[..]
> > +static int qcom_hwspinlock_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
[..]
> > +
> > + ret = hwspin_lock_register(bank, &pdev->dev, &qcom_hwspinlock_ops,
> > + BASE_ID, num_locks);
>
> I had also done the registration for OMAP hwspinlock driver using a
> constant id in my v5, but had revised it based on Ohad's review comment,
> so you may have to revise here as well. Please see [1] for details.
>
Okay, I can add that too.
> > + if (ret)
> > + pm_runtime_disable(&pdev->dev);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
[..]
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4096881/
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
