Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 00/13] hwspinlock: move device alloc into core and refactor includes

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 11:54:40PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> My ultimate goal is to allow hwspinlock provider drivers outside of the
> subsystem directory. It turned out that a simple split of the headers
> files into a public provider and a public consumer header file is not
> enough because core internal structure need to stay hidden. Even more,
> their opaqueness could and should even be increased. That would also
> allow the core to handle the de-/allocation of the hwspinlock device
> itself.
> 
> This series does all that. Patches 1-7 abstract access to internal
> structures away using helpers. Patch 8 then move hwspinlock device
> handling to the core, simplifying drivers. The remaining patches
> refactor the headers until the internal one is gone and the public ones
> are divided into provider and consumer parts. More details are given in
> the patch descriptions.
> 
> One note about using a callback to initialize hwspinlock priv: I also
> experimented with a dedicated 'set_priv' helper function. It felt a bit
> clumsy to me. Drivers would need to save the 'bank' pointer again and
> iterate over it. Because most drivers will only have a simple callback
> anyhow, it looked leaner to me.
> 
> This series is based on the cleanup series "hwspinlock: remove
> platform_data from subsystem" and has been tested on a Renesas
> SparrowHawk board (R-Car V4H) with a yet-to-be-upstreamed hwspinlock
> driver for the MFIS IP core. A branch can be found here (the MFIS driver
> is still WIP):
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git renesas/hwspinlock/refactor-alloc-buildtest
> 
> Buildbots seem to be happy, too.
> 
> Looking forward to comments. I especially wonder if the last patch
> should stay as-is or if it should be broken out, so individual
> subsystems can pick up their part (with a fallback in place, of course,
> until the last user is converted).

Coincidentally I have briefly reviewed it in the Git tree before you have sent
this to ML. I like the whole series, but what I have missed is the explanation
of the removal of Contact: comment in some of the files.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko