[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e45cd7bb6dce2b8b2f08d3b3bd96bb06.sboyd@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:52:01 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Jacky Huang <ychuang570808@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
jirislaby@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
lee@...nel.org, mturquette@...libre.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
robh+dt@...nel.org
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
arnd@...db.de, schung@...oton.com, mjchen@...oton.com,
Jacky Huang <ychuang3@...oton.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 08/12] arm64: dts: nuvoton: Add initial ma35d1 device tree
Quoting Jacky Huang (2023-03-28 23:02:31)
>
> On 2023/3/29 上午 11:54, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Jacky Huang (2023-03-28 20:43:23)
> >
> >> We just employ regmap mechansim for the access to REG_SYS_RLKTZNS register.
> >> Is this implementation OK for you? Thank you.
> >>
> > No. Why can't that be a hwspinlock? Or why can't it be unlocked all the
> > time and rely on software spinlocks in the kernel to prevent concurrent
> > access to the registers accessed by a driver, like a lock for the clk
> > registers and a lock for the reset registers, etc. Or if no two clks or
> > resets exist within one 32-bit word then no lock is necessary.
>
> You gave a good suggestion here. Yes, of course we can let it be
> unlocked all the time.
> We can unlock the "register lock" before entering Linux.
> As a result, the unlonk and lock register related code is not required.
> Thus, we can remove syscon from the clock controller node.
>
> If you agree with this, we will modify it in the next version.
>
Sure, that works.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists