[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140923190057.GN15315@lukather>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:00:57 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
To: "David E. Box" <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: wsa@...-dreams.de, jdelvare@...e.de, arnd@...db.de,
dianders@...omium.org, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com, maxime.coquelin@...com,
andrew@...n.ch, sjg@...omium.org, markus.mayer@...aro.org,
ch.naveen@...sung.com, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com,
max.schwarz@...ine.de, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
skuribay@...ox.com, Romain.Baeriswyl@...lis.com,
wenkai.du@...el.com, chiau.ee.chew@...el.com,
christian.ruppert@...lis.com, alan@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] i2c-designware: Add Intel Baytrail PMIC I2C bus
support
Hi David,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:40:26AM -0700, David E. Box wrote:
> This patch implements an I2C bus sharing mechanism between the host and platform
> hardware on select Intel BayTrail SoC platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC.
>
> On these platforms access to the PMIC must be shared with platform hardware. The
> hardware unit assumes full control of the I2C bus and the host must request
> access through a special semaphore. Hardware control of the bus also makes it
> necessary to disable runtime pm to avoid interfering with hardware transactions.
>
> Signed-off-by: David E. Box <david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>
Sorry for stepping in like this without really knowing your platform,
but wouldn't using the hwspinlock framework make more sense than
hardcoding your own internal functions here?
Thanks,
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists