[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJAp7OisV3UrL45UgRb0tMudyCJHe-xsmsRYV0uGG3P4PReHnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:43:46 -0800
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 5/5] hwspinlock/omap: add support for dt nodes
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists