[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150312205600.GE497@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:56:00 -0600
From: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>
To: Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
jhugo@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lock 7 is cpuidle specific, use non-generic value for
locking
On Thu, Mar 12 2015 at 14:49 -0600, Andy Gross wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:38:28PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>> {
>> struct regmap_field *field = lock->priv;
>> u32 lock_owner;
>> int ret;
>> + u32 proc_id;
>>
>> - ret = regmap_field_write(field, QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID);
>> + proc_id = hwspin_lock_get_id(lock) == QCOM_CPUIDLE_LOCK ?
>> + QCOM_MUTEX_CPUIDLE_OFFSET + smp_processor_id():
>> + QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
>> +
>> + ret = regmap_field_write(field, proc_id);
>
>I think I'd rather have a qcom specific function and EXPORT_SYMBOL that to deal
>with this special case.
>
I was going back and forth between a function and inlining this here.
But Stephen just made a good point that this is needed for unlock as
well. A function would be good.
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> @@ -42,7 +49,7 @@ static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - return lock_owner == QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
>> + return lock_owner == proc_id;
>> }
>>
>> static void qcom_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>> --
>> 2.1.0
>>
>
>--
>Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
>a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
>
--
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