On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > For dynamic allocation, my impression is that we don't > need any link from the spinlock user device to the controller at all, I agree. > but instead the controller should have a list of the available > spinlocks. Might make more sense to give it the list of reserved (i.e. those that were statically allocated) spinlocks, and then let it treat the rest as available. hwspinlock drivers will tell the core which of their spinlocks are reserved, so it can make sure not to allocate them when someone calls hwspin_lock_request(). To use those reserved spinlocks, users will explicitly have to call hwspin_lock_request_specific(). The controller's node should still have something like a "baseid" attribute, and possibly also the number of available spinlocks. The latter is a bit redundant though, as drivers already know how many spinlocks are available (at least the OMAP driver reads it from an hardware register. The U8500 one seem just to have it hardcoded in the driver). Vast majority of hwspinlocks are not statically allocated, so this would keep the DT minimal, and IMHO, cleaner. -- 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
