On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:38:28PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
<snip>
> static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> {
> struct regmap_field *field = lock->priv;
> u32 lock_owner;
> int ret;
> + u32 proc_id;
>
> - ret = regmap_field_write(field, QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID);
> + proc_id = hwspin_lock_get_id(lock) == QCOM_CPUIDLE_LOCK ?
> + QCOM_MUTEX_CPUIDLE_OFFSET + smp_processor_id():
> + QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
> +
> + ret = regmap_field_write(field, proc_id);
I think I'd rather have a qcom specific function and EXPORT_SYMBOL that to deal
with this special case.
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -42,7 +49,7 @@ static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - return lock_owner == QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
> + return lock_owner == proc_id;
> }
>
> static void qcom_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> --
> 2.1.0
>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
