[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54BFE855.3090200@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:56:37 -0600
From: Suman Anna <s-anna@...com>
To: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>,
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-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] Documentation: dt: add common bindings for hwspinlock
On 01/21/2015 06:41 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:
>> How about default to Linux id space and allow overriding that with
>> a module param option if needed?
>
> I'm not sure I'm following.
>
> If the main point of contention is the base_id field, I'm also fine
> with removing it entirely, as I'm not aware of any actual user for it
> (Suman please confirm?).
Yeah, well the current implementations that I am aware of only have a
single bank, so all of them would be using a value of 0. I am yet to see
a platform with multiple instances where the property really makes a
difference. v7 has the property mandatory, so all the implementations
would need to define this value even if it is 0.
regards
Suman
>
> Mark? Rob? Will you accept Suman's patches if the base_id field is removed?
>
> Thanks,
> Ohad.
>
--
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