Sanjeev, > -----Original Message----- > From: Premi, Sanjeev > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 9:12 AM > To: Kanigeri, Hari; Linux Omap; Tony Lindgren > Cc: Shilimkar, Santosh; Cousson, Benoit; Que, Simon > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/5] omap:hwspinlock-define HWSPINLOCK base address > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kanigeri, Hari > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:20 PM > > To: Premi, Sanjeev; Linux Omap; Tony Lindgren > > Cc: Shilimkar, Santosh; Cousson, Benoit; Que, Simon > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/5] omap:hwspinlock-define HWSPINLOCK > > base address > > > > Sanjeev, > > > > > > @@ -49,5 +49,10 @@ > > > > #define OMAP44XX_MAILBOX_BASE (L4_44XX_BASE + 0xF4000) > > > > #define OMAP44XX_HSUSB_OTG_BASE (L4_44XX_BASE + 0xAB000) > > > > > > > > +#define OMAP4_MMU1_BASE 0x55082000 > > > > +#define OMAP4_MMU2_BASE 0x4A066000 > > > > > > [sp] Are these 2 base addresses related to this patch? > > > > Nope. Thanks for finding this. I will update the patch. > > [sp] Then additional patch only to add the base address won't make much > sense. > You may want to combine it with appropriately with another one in > this > series. I think the define to add SPINLOCK base address is independent of adding spinlock driver functionality, and I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a separate patch. Example: The driver patches might take time to get upstreamed, but that shouldn't stop this patch that adds the missing Base address. > > > > > > > > > ~sanjeev > > > > > > > + > > > > +#define OMAP44XX_SPINLOCK_BASE (L4_44XX_BASE + 0xF6000) > > > > + > > > > #endif /* __ASM_ARCH_OMAP44XX_H */ > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 1.7.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > Hari > > -- 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
