On Thu, Mar 12 2015 at 14:49 -0600, Andy Gross wrote:
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.
I was going back and forth between a function and inlining this here.
But Stephen just made a good point that this is needed for unlock as
well. A function would be good.
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
