From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] hwspinlock: qcom: Add support for Qualcomm HW, Mutex block Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:15:13 -0500 Message-ID: <20150311221513.GA27985@qualcomm.com> References: <5500A8BE.2060601@sonymobile.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5500A8BE.2060601@sonymobile.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tim Bird Cc: Bjorn Andersson , ohad@wizery.com, "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , jhugo@codeaurora.org, s-anna@ti.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Frank Rowand List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:42:38PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote: > I'm pretty anxious about this one, as my current work has a dependency on it. > Virtually the entirety of the QualComm SOC work is dependent on this > because it's needed by the interprocessor communication framework > and the regulator driver. > > I assume we're waiting on the response from Ohad about getting this upstream? > It's been almost 2 weeks with no reply. > > Ohad - do you plan to do anything with this patch? We seem to be at an impasse > (once again). With Suman's patches and this, the ball is in Ohad's court. I believe Ohad does this work in his off time as it is unpaid work. > > This is the 6th attempt over the course of the last year and a half to get > this hwspinlock code mainlined. Should we just not use the hwspinlock > framework? > > What are our options going forward? Not sure, aside from landing this somewhere else. But that has it's own inherent issues. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project