>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HwSpinlock IP is present only on OMAP4 and other newer SoCs, >>>>>>>> which are all device-tree boot only. This patch adds the >>>>>>>> base support for parsing the DT nodes, and removes the code >>>>>>>> dealing with the traditional platform device instantiation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Suman Anna <s-a...@ti.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt | 28 ++++++++++ >>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile | 3 -- >>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c | 60 >>>>>>>> ---------------------- >>>>>>>> drivers/hwspinlock/omap_hwspinlock.c | 21 ++++++-- >>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> create mode 100644 >>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt >>>>>>>> delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git >>>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt >>>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt >>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>>> index 0000000..adfb8ad >>>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/hwlock/omap-hwspinlock.txt >>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ >>>>>>>> +OMAP4+ HwSpinlock Driver >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +Required properties: >>>>>>>> +- compatible: Currently supports only "ti,omap4-hwspinlock" >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> + OMAP44xx, OMAP54xx, AM33xx, AM43xx, >>>>>>>> DRA7xx SoCs >>>>>>>> +- reg: Contains the hwspinlock register >>>>>>>> address range (base >>>>>>>> + address and length) >>>>>>>> +- ti,hwmods: Name of the hwmod associated with the >>>>>>>> hwspinlock device >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> +Optional properties: >>>>>>>> +- base_id: Base Id for the locks for a particular >>>>>>>> hwspinlock >>>>>>>> + device. If not mentioned, a default value of 0 >>>>>>>> is used. >>>>>>>> + This property is mandatory ONLY if a SoC has >>>>>>>> several >>>>>>>> + hwspinlock devices. There are currently no such >>>>>>>> OMAP >>>>>>>> + SoCs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should this be ti,base_id ? [ I know its kinda generic in its intent >>>>>>> for any SoC w/multiple blocks ] >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't add the "ti," prefix exactly for the same reason - it is >>>>>> generic w.r.t the hwspinlock core irrespective of the SoC family, and >>>>>> there is nothing ti or OMAP specific about it. I have added it to keep >>>>>> the DT node definition in sync with the driver code. If it is too >>>>>> generic a name, it can always be renamed as hwlock_base_id. This will be >>>>>> SoC agnostic property for the hwspinlock driver. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> I'm wondering if we should use cell-index for this purpose. >>>> >>>> I didn't get you completely. Do you intend to compute the base_id using >>>> cell-index and number of locks (which may be a separate field altogether >>>> if this information cannot be read from the h/w)? My understanding is >>>> that cell-index is primarily used for identifying the h/w instance number. >>> >>> I was suggesting using cell-index instead of base_id. What we should >>> probably due is have a devicetree/bindings/hwlock/hwlock.txt that would >>> describe generic properties like this and just reference that in the omap >>> binding spec. >> >> Common hwlock.txt sounds good. Will make the change. >> >>> >>> I'm thinking if we dont use cell-index, that it should probably be >>> hwlock-base-id >>> >> >> I prefer to use hwlock-base-id. I think we should also be defining a >> common property name for number of locks, say hwlock-num-locks. > > I'm good with that, cell-index is always funny so might as well be explicit. > > I'm also good with hwlock-num-locks, I'll update the msm spinlock driver to > use this. > > Can you also maybe add some helper functions into the hwspinlock core to > return these values so we both don't duplicate code in drivers and maintain > consistency.
I am trying to understand what you would need these for. Your driver would already know the base_id and num_locks, since these are used in the registration function. regards Suman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
