Hi Suman, On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> wrote: >> I'm not sure we need this patch. > > This patch is needed if we use the controller-phandle + args specifier > for requesting hwlocks by a client, as we need to translate > controller-phandle to the corresponding hwspinlock_device. > > Looks like we still don't have a closure on the semantics of how > clients have to request a lock in DT. You are suggesting something like > hwlocks = <global_lock1 global_lock2 ...>; > > whereas this patch is built to support based on comments from > DT-maintainers, > hwlocks = <controller-phandle lock-specifier1>, <controller-phandle > lock-specifier2>...; I'm actually ok with this suggestion and haven't suggested otherwise. All I propose is that we add the base_id property to the controller node (as you have done in the subsequent patches), and then drivers will be able to infer the global lock id from the DT data by adding the controller's base_id to the lock specifier. Controllers with non standard lock indexing may use an xlate() method if needed but frankly this is fictional right now. We can start without this, and add it later when needed, as this doesn't affect the DT data. With the global lock id in hand, drivers could simply use the existing hwspin_lock_request_specific API to obtain a specific lock, and then we don't need this patch. Thanks, Ohad. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
