From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Sender: Kukjin Kim Message-ID: <51C9C82D.6010808@samsung.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:41:17 +0900 From: Kukjin Kim MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/18] pwm: Add new pwm-samsung driver References: <1371766383-29077-1-git-send-email-tomasz.figa@gmail.com> <1405696.in3RSSDWnX@flatron> <20130625102646.GC21137@manwe> <1688471.WOi6pAAcEq@amdc1227> In-Reply-To: <1688471.WOi6pAAcEq@amdc1227> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Thierry Reding , Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Sylwester Nawrocki , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Heiko_St=FCbner?= , Mark Brown , Thomas Abraham On 06/25/13 20:19, Tomasz Figa wrote: [...] >>>>> /* >>>>> >>>>> * 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 > > 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? > Tomasz, please re-send this one with fixing it but I'm not sure this can be sent for upcoming merge window because it's a little bit late. Anyway, let me try it. Thanks, - Kukjin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:41:17 +0900 Subject: [PATCH v3 11/18] pwm: Add new pwm-samsung driver In-Reply-To: <1688471.WOi6pAAcEq@amdc1227> References: <1371766383-29077-1-git-send-email-tomasz.figa@gmail.com> <1405696.in3RSSDWnX@flatron> <20130625102646.GC21137@manwe> <1688471.WOi6pAAcEq@amdc1227> Message-ID: <51C9C82D.6010808@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 06/25/13 20:19, Tomasz Figa wrote: [...] >>>>> /* >>>>> >>>>> * 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 > > 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? > Tomasz, please re-send this one with fixing it but I'm not sure this can be sent for upcoming merge window because it's a little bit late. Anyway, let me try it. Thanks, - Kukjin