[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=Wgbbe9sdV1aEnPN26ujQ3hpSWMuPw901AndpgfSqKCAtong@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:25:30 +0300
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] hwspinlock: Introduce raw capability for hwspinlock_device
Hi Lina,
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hi Ohad,
>
> Any comments?
Sorry, I was under the impression the discussion with Bjorn is still open.
Like Bjorn, I'm not so sure too we want to bind a specific lock to the
RAW capability since this is not a lock-specific hardware detail.
As far as I can see, the hardware-specific differences (if any) are at
the vendor level and not at the lock level, therefore it might make
more sense to add the caps member to hwspinlock_device rather than to
the hwspinlock struct (Jeffrey commented about this too).
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