Partha and Benoit,
> > +/* Attempt to acquire a spinlock once */
> > +int hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *handle)
> > +{
> > + int retval = 0;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(handle == NULL))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(in_irq()))
> > + return -EPERM;
> > +
> > + if (pm_runtime_get(&handle->pdev->dev) < 0)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + /* Attempt to acquire the lock by reading from it */
> > + retval = readl(handle->lock_reg);
> > +
> > + if (retval == HWSPINLOCK_BUSY)
> > + pm_runtime_put(&handle->pdev->dev);
> Any reason for using pm_runtime_put instead of pm_runtime_put_sync?
>
> Using pm_runtime_gett_sync & pm_runtime_put_sync have been recommended by
> Kevin Hilman.
Actually is there a need to call pm_runtime_put_sync for hwspinlock ? Spinlocks are used by the co-processors and we have to ensure that the device doesn't enter some low power mode without the knowledge of Co-processor. I don't think run time PM is needed for hwspinlock.
Just doing pm_runtime_get_sync at probe time for all the spinlock instances should be good.
>
Thank you,
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
