From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ohad@wizery.com (Ohad Ben-Cohen) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:54:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device In-Reply-To: <20101025190221.GC7206@atomide.com> References: <1287387875-14168-1-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <1287387875-14168-4-git-send-email-ohad@wizery.com> <87r5fmxghm.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <87bp6pviwf.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <8739s0sobc.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20101022165612.GF9149@atomide.com> <20101025190221.GC7206@atomide.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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 ? Thanks, Ohad.