[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150501173117.GA7115@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 11:31:17 -0600
From: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>
To: Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
Cc: ohad@...ery.com, s-anna@...com, Bjorn.Andersson@...ymobile.com,
agross@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, galak@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwspinlock: qcom: Lock #7 is special lock, uses dynamic
proc_id
On Fri, May 01 2015 at 11:27 -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
>On 5/1/2015 11:06 AM, Lina Iyer wrote:
>
>>diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c b/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c
>>index 93b62e0..043c62c 100644
>>--- a/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c
>>+++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/qcom_hwspinlock.c
>>@@ -25,16 +25,26 @@
>>
>> #include "hwspinlock_internal.h"
>>
>>-#define QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID 1
>>-#define QCOM_MUTEX_NUM_LOCKS 32
>>+#define QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID 1
>>+#define QCOM_MUTEX_CPUIDLE_OFFSET 128
>>+#define QCOM_CPUIDLE_LOCK 7
>>+#define QCOM_MUTEX_NUM_LOCKS 32
>>+
>
>This part of the diff doesn't look right. Why is it showing that
>QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID and QCOM_MUTEX_NUM_LOCKS are deleted and added
>lines? Shouldn't they be unchanged by this patch?
>
Sigh. I must have updated the tabs to play nice. Will fix in the next
spin.
Thanks for the review.
--Lina
>--
>Jeffrey Hugo
>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