+ Sjur, Ludovic, Loic On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I thought we wanted to allow both calls to proceed in parallel? If we >> don't care about that > > Yeah, I don't think we do. > >> then "announcing" it once the firmware is found the first time sounds correct. > > I agree. Though this patch may be moot very soon due to: > >>> The main reason we kept the get/put interface was to make it easier >>> for you guys to adopt it, but I've been re-thinking lately whether we >>> really want that interface. It's a problematic interface with >>> non-negligible maintenance burden, and the code will be greatly >>> simplified without it. >> >> If nobody in the kernel is using it why keep it? > > I was concerned that the non get/put interface might not suit > everyone, and I planned to wait for another user or two to show up > before I remove that interface. > > Since MSM's PIL is based on a get/put interface, I actually hoped to > see if you guys can adopt the new interface before we ditch the > get/put one. > >> If MSM needs we can add it back when we move to rproc. > > Thanks - that's the kind of feedback I wanted to get. Sjur, Ludovic, Loic - what remoteproc API are you using today? We'd like to get rid of the existing get/put interface and instead have everyone use the boot/shutdown one, just like rpmsg is doing today. Are you ok with this change? 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
