Hi Benoit,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@xxxxxx> wrote:
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwspinlock/omap-spinlock.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> +* HW spinlock on OMAP4 platform:
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible : Must be "ti,omap4-spinlock";
> +- ti,hwmods : "spinlock"
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
> index 4c61c82..7a7f31e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
> @@ -99,5 +99,10 @@
> reg = <0x48241000 0x1000>,
> <0x48240100 0x0100>;
> };
> +
> + spinlock {
> + compatible = "ti,omap4-spinlock";
> + ti,hwmods = "spinlock";
> + };
I think it'd be nice to add the 'baseid' property as we discussed for
dynamic allocation of hwspinlocks.
The patch that adds the hwspinlock groundwork for this is in
linux-next and will hopefully get into 3.2 if everything works out
well:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/12/194
Of course, as we discussed with Arnd, we will use phandles to the
hwspinlock controller when we'll get to static allocations of
hwspinlock instances.
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
