From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey Hugo Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwspinlock: qcom: Lock #7 is special lock, uses dynamic proc_id Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 11:27:21 -0600 Message-ID: <5543B779.8040109@codeaurora.org> References: <1430499992-47944-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1430499992-47944-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lina Iyer , ohad@wizery.com, s-anna@ti.com, Bjorn.Andersson@sonymobile.com, agross@codeaurora.org Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, galak@codeaurora.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 5/1/2015 11:06 AM, Lina Iyer wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c b/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c > index 93b62e0..043c62c 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c > +++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c > @@ -25,16 +25,26 @@ > > #include "hwspinlock_internal.h" > > -#define QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID 1 > -#define QCOM_MUTEX_NUM_LOCKS 32 > +#define QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID 1 > +#define QCOM_MUTEX_CPUIDLE_OFFSET 128 > +#define QCOM_CPUIDLE_LOCK 7 > +#define QCOM_MUTEX_NUM_LOCKS 32 > + This part of the diff doesn't look right. Why is it showing that QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID and QCOM_MUTEX_NUM_LOCKS are deleted and added lines? Shouldn't they be unchanged by this patch? -- Jeffrey Hugo Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project