From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:06:46 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device In-Reply-To: References: <87r5fmxghm.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <87bp6pviwf.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <8739s0sobc.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20101022165612.GF9149@atomide.com> <20101025190221.GC7206@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20101026190645.GH3012@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Ohad Ben-Cohen [101026 04:45]: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> if you feel that (2) is justifiable/desirable, I would be more > >> than happy to submit that version. > > > > Yes (2) please. I would assume there will be more use of this. And then > > we (or probably me again!) don't have to deal with cleaning up the drivers > > again in the future. > > Sounds good. > > >> Or do you mean a variation of (2) with only the specific locking bits > >> coming from pdata func pointers ? I guess that in this case we just > >> might as well go with the full (2). > > > > Yes variation of (2) where you only pass the locking function via > > platform data would be best. > > It feels a bit funky to me because we would still have code that is > omap-specific inside the "common" probe()/remove() calls. > > I suggest to move everything that is omap-specific to a small omap > module that, once probed, would register itself with the common > hwspinlock framework (after initializing its hardware). > > That small platfom-specific module probably doesn't have to sit in the > arch/ folder; we can follow established conventions like > mmc/i2c/gpio/spi/etc.. > > With that in hand, the hwspinlock would really be hardware-agnostic, > and then applying s/omap_hwspin/hwspin/ would be justified. > > Does this sound reasonable to you ? Sounds good to me. Tony