Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com> [101026 04:45]:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> >> if you feel that (2) is justifiable/desirable, I would be more
> >> than happy to submit that version.
> >
> > Yes (2) please. I would assume there will be more use of this. And then
> > we (or probably me again!) don't have to deal with cleaning up the drivers
> > again in the future.
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> >> Or do you mean a variation of (2) with only the specific locking bits
> >> coming from pdata func pointers ? I guess that in this case we just
> >> might as well go with the full (2).
> >
> > Yes variation of (2) where you only pass the locking function via
> > platform data would be best.
> 
> It feels a bit funky to me because we would still have code that is
> omap-specific inside the "common" probe()/remove() calls.
> 
> I suggest to move everything that is omap-specific to a small omap
> module that, once probed, would register itself with the common
> hwspinlock framework (after initializing its hardware).
> 
> That small platfom-specific module probably doesn't have to sit in the
> arch/ folder; we can follow established conventions like
> mmc/i2c/gpio/spi/etc..
> 
> With that in hand, the hwspinlock would really be hardware-agnostic,
> and then applying s/omap_hwspin/hwspin/ would be justified.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable to you ?

Sounds good to me.

Tony