From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lock 7 is cpuidle specific, use non-generic value for
 locking
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:56:00 -0600
Message-ID: <20150312205600.GE497@linaro.org>
References: <1425076217-10415-2-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com>
 <1426189108-35488-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org>
 <20150312204902.GA14659@qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Return-path: <linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:33406 "EHLO
	mail-pd0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752889AbbCLU4E (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:56:04 -0400
Received: by pdev10 with SMTP id v10so23053437pde.0
        for <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150312204902.GA14659@qualcomm.com>
Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, jhugo@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 12 2015 at 14:49 -0600, Andy Gross wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:38:28PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>  static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>>  {
>>  	struct regmap_field *field = lock->priv;
>>  	u32 lock_owner;
>>  	int ret;
>> +	u32 proc_id;
>>
>> -	ret = regmap_field_write(field, QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID);
>> +	proc_id = hwspin_lock_get_id(lock) == QCOM_CPUIDLE_LOCK ?
>> +			QCOM_MUTEX_CPUIDLE_OFFSET + smp_processor_id():
>> +			QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
>> +
>> +	ret = regmap_field_write(field, proc_id);
>
>I think I'd rather have a qcom specific function and EXPORT_SYMBOL that to deal
>with this special case.
>
I was going back and forth between a function and inlining this here.
But Stephen just made a good point that this is needed for unlock as
well. A function would be good.


>>  	if (ret)
>>  		return ret;
>>
>> @@ -42,7 +49,7 @@ static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>>  	if (ret)
>>  		return ret;
>>
>> -	return lock_owner == QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
>> +	return lock_owner == proc_id;
>>  }
>>
>>  static void qcom_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>> --
>> 2.1.0
>>
>
>-- 
>Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>