From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] Documentation: dt: add common bindings for hwspinlock Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:56:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20150122185622.GE12911@leverpostej> References: <1421269101-51105-2-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <20150115135201.GG16217@leverpostej> <20150115135556.GH16217@leverpostej> <20150116101746.GA21809@leverpostej> <20150120180548.GK7718@atomide.com> <54BFE855.3090200@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54BFE855.3090200-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Suman Anna Cc: Ohad Ben-Cohen , Tony Lindgren , Rob Herring , Kumar Gala , Bjorn Andersson , Josh Cartwright , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-omap-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Rob Herring List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:56:37PM +0000, Suman Anna wrote: > On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with > >> a module param option if needed? > > > > I'm not sure I'm following. > > > > If the main point of contention is the base_id field, I'm also fine > > with removing it entirely, as I'm not aware of any actual user for it > > (Suman please confirm?). > > Yeah, well the current implementations that I am aware of only have a > single bank, so all of them would be using a value of 0. I am yet to see > a platform with multiple instances where the property really makes a > difference. v7 has the property mandatory, so all the implementations > would need to define this value even if it is 0. > > regards > Suman > > > > > Mark? Rob? Will you accept Suman's patches if the base_id field is removed? My concern is that the mapping of hwspinlock IDs doesn't seem to be explicit in the DT on a per-context basis, which is what I'd expect. e.g. lck: hwspinlock-device@f00 { ... #hwlock-cells = <1>; }; some-other-os-interface { ... hwlocks = <&lck 0>, <&lck 1>, <&lck 2>, <&lck 3>; hwlock-names = "glbl", "pool0", "pool1", "pool2"; }; a-different-os-interface { ... hwlocks = <&lck 18>, <&lck 21>, <&lck 4>, <&lck 5>; hwlock-names = "init", "teardown", "pool0", "pool1"; }; That's the only way I would expect this to possibly remain a stable over time, and it's the entire reason for #hwlock-cells, no? How do you expect the other components sharing the hwspinlocks to be described? Thanks, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html