On Sunday 11 September 2011, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > > 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. Fair enough. Whatever you expect to be a shorter list, I guess. > 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. Ok. Arnd -- 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
