From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Andersson Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 5/5] hwspinlock/omap: add support for dt nodes Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:43:46 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1410553499-55951-1-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> <1410553499-55951-6-git-send-email-s-anna@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ohad Ben-Cohen Cc: Suman Anna , Mark Rutland , Kumar Gala , Tony Lindgren , Josh Cartwright , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > Hi Suman, [..] > > Does this mean you allow nodes not to have the base_id property? How > do we protect against multiple nodes not having a base_id property > then? > > Implicitly assuming a base_id value (zero in this case) may not be always safe. > Hi Ohad, I still have a huge problem understanding the awesomeness with the "base_id". If you have a SoC with 2 hwlock blocks; say 8+8 locks, used for interaction with e.g. a modem and a video core respectively. Why would you in either remote system offset the locks with 8? Wouldn't e.g the modem use locks hwlock0:0-7 and video core use locks hwlock1:0-7? What systems use more than one hwlock block and do you know of any reasons why these hwlocks are globally numbered? Regards, Bjorn