From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey Hugo Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/2] hwspinlock: Introduce raw capability for hwspinlocks Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 10:59:50 -0600 Message-ID: <55771B86.4050708@codeaurora.org> References: <1433867020-7746-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1433867020-7746-2-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: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:38753 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753167AbbFIQ7x (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2015 12:59:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1433867020-7746-2-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Lina Iyer , ohad@wizery.com Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Gross Two minor nits I noticed. On 6/9/2015 10:23 AM, Lina Iyer wrote: > The hwspinlock framework, uses a s/w spin lock around the hw spinlock to > ensure that only process acquires the lock at any time. This is the most Should this be "ensure that only one process"? > Introduce hwcaps member for hwspinlock_device. The hwcaps represents the Technically you added it to the hwspinlock struct, not hwspinlock_device. Mentioning that the hwcaps member was added to hwspinlock_device in the description here may be slightly confusing. -- Jeffrey Hugo Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project