On Tuesday 25 of June 2013 12:26:47 Thierry Reding wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:17:03PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Monday 24 of June 2013 22:53:42 Thierry Reding wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:32:55PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: > [...] > > > > > What about: > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > > > > * PWM block is shared between pwm-samsung and samsung_pwm_timer > > > > drivers > > > > * and some registers need access synchronization. If both drivers > > > > are > > > > * compiled in, the spinlock is defined in the clocksource driver, > > > > * otherwise following definition is used. > > > > * > > > > * Currently we do not need any more complex synchronization method > > > > * because all the supported SoCs contain only one instance of the > > > > PWM > > > > * IP. Should this change, both drivers will need to be modified to > > > > * properly synchronize accesses to particular instances. > > > > */ > > > > > > I see that you can't be persuaded. And everybody else seems to be > > > okay > > > with it so... have it your way. I'm probably going to regret this. > > > > This was just a proposal. Do you want anything else to be added to the > > comment or anything to be changed? > > For reference, I still don't like this but since I'm the only one > complaining, go ahead. With that comment added to the driver: > > Acked-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> OK. Thank you. Kukjin, can you amend the comment I mentioned to this patch above the line with DEFINE_SPINLOCK or I should send fixed version? Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |