On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 03:03:49PM +0530, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > Paul/Benoit, > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 07:18:22AM +0530, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > > Paul/Benoit, > > > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > > > On 12/3/2010 10:47 AM, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > > > >* Cousson, Benoit<b-cousson@xxxxxx> [2010-12-03 09:38:35 +0100]: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > >>>v7: replaced mutex lock with spin lock. Added use count for controlling > > > >>>access to sysconfig registers in case if overlapping request/release API's > > > >>>are used. > > > >> > > > >>I'm not sure it should be done here. I'd rather keep that code in > > > >>the DMA, since this is the only user of that feature. > > > > > > > >Are you referring to spin lock or usage count? > > > > > > The spinlock is needed, I was referring to the usage count. > > > > > > That being said, the API proposed by Paul (request/release > > > ) sound like a get/put, so maybe he had that kind of usage in mind. > > > > > > I'm still not convince it should be done at hwmod API level. > > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > Any thoughts on that? > > > > How do we proceed further? > Gentle reminder! > > Can we please align on this so that DMA sysconfig patches can be > upstreamed? > > Discussion on this topic can be accessed at: > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/372231/ > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg39728.html As there is no response from paul on this topic, I will go ahead with usage count logic proposed by Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/366831/ Above logic has got: Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> Acked-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxxxxx> -Manjunath -- 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
