lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device
Date
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com> writes:

> From: Simon Que <sque@ti.com>
>
> Build and register an hwspinlock platform device.
>
> Although only OMAP4 supports the hardware spinlock module (for now),
> it is still safe to run this initcall on all omaps, because hwmod lookup
> will simply fail on hwspinlock-less platforms.
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Que <sque@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>
> Cc: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile | 1 +
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
> index 7352412..e55d1c5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile
> @@ -190,3 +190,4 @@ obj-y += $(smc91x-m) $(smc91x-y)
>
> smsc911x-$(CONFIG_SMSC911X) := gpmc-smsc911x.o
> obj-y += $(smsc911x-m) $(smsc911x-y)
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4) += hwspinlock.o
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..641a6d4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/hwspinlock.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
> +/*
> + * OMAP hardware spinlock device initialization
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2010 Texas Instruments. All rights reserved.
> + *
> + * Contact: Simon Que <sque@ti.com>
> + * Hari Kanigeri <h-kanigeri2@ti.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> + * version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> + * General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> + * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> + * Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
> + * 02110-1301 USA
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +
> +#include <plat/omap_hwmod.h>
> +#include <plat/omap_device.h>
> +
> +struct omap_device_pm_latency omap_spinlock_latency[] = {
> + {
> + .deactivate_func = omap_device_idle_hwmods,
> + .activate_func = omap_device_enable_hwmods,
> + .flags = OMAP_DEVICE_LATENCY_AUTO_ADJUST,
> + }
> +};
> +
> +int __init hwspinlocks_init(void)
> +{
> + int retval = 0;
> + struct omap_hwmod *oh;
> + struct omap_device *od;
> + const char *oh_name = "spinlock";
> + const char *dev_name = "omap_hwspinlock";
> +
> + /*
> + * Hwmod lookup will fail in case our platform doesn't support the
> + * hardware spinlock module, so it is safe to run this initcall
> + * on all omaps
> + */
> + oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(oh_name);
> + if (oh == NULL)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + od = omap_device_build(dev_name, 0, oh, NULL, 0,
> + omap_spinlock_latency,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(omap_spinlock_latency), false);
> + if (IS_ERR(od)) {
> + pr_err("Can't build omap_device for %s:%s\n", dev_name,
> + oh_name);
> + retval = PTR_ERR(od);
> + }
> +
> + return retval;
> +}
> +postcore_initcall(hwspinlocks_init);

Any reason this needs to be a postcore_initcall? Are there users of
hwspinlocks this early in boot? Probaly subsys or even device_initcall
is more appropriate here.

I would've suspected that any users of hwspinlocks will be dependent on
drivers for the other cores (e.g. syslink) which would likely be
initialized much later.

Kevin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-19 19:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site