On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> if you feel that (2) is justifiable/desirable, I would be more >> than happy to submit that version. > > Yes (2) please. I would assume there will be more use of this. And then > we (or probably me again!) don't have to deal with cleaning up the drivers > again in the future. Sounds good. >> Or do you mean a variation of (2) with only the specific locking bits >> coming from pdata func pointers ? I guess that in this case we just >> might as well go with the full (2). > > Yes variation of (2) where you only pass the locking function via > platform data would be best. It feels a bit funky to me because we would still have code that is omap-specific inside the "common" probe()/remove() calls. I suggest to move everything that is omap-specific to a small omap module that, once probed, would register itself with the common hwspinlock framework (after initializing its hardware). That small platfom-specific module probably doesn't have to sit in the arch/ folder; we can follow established conventions like mmc/i2c/gpio/spi/etc.. With that in hand, the hwspinlock would really be hardware-agnostic, and then applying s/omap_hwspin/hwspin/ would be justified. Does this sound reasonable to you ? 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
