* Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> [101026 04:45]: > 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 ? Sounds good to me. Tony -- 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
