[PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device

Ohad Ben-Cohen ohad at wizery.com
Tue Oct 26 07:54:37 EDT 2010

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
>> if you feel that (2) is justifiable/desirable, I would be more
>> than happy to submit that version.
> Yes (2) please. I would assume there will be more use of this. And then
> we (or probably me again!) don't have to deal with cleaning up the drivers
> again in the future.

Sounds good.

>> Or do you mean a variation of (2) with only the specific locking bits
>> coming from pdata func pointers ? I guess that in this case we just
>> might as well go with the full (2).
> Yes variation of (2) where you only pass the locking function via
> platform data would be best.

It feels a bit funky to me because we would still have code that is
omap-specific inside the "common" probe()/remove() calls.

I suggest to move everything that is omap-specific to a small omap
module that, once probed, would register itself with the common
hwspinlock framework (after initializing its hardware).

That small platfom-specific module probably doesn't have to sit in the
arch/ folder; we can follow established conventions like

With that in hand, the hwspinlock would really be hardware-agnostic,
and then applying s/omap_hwspin/hwspin/ would be justified.

Does this sound reasonable to you ?


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list