Messages in this thread | | | From | Ohad Ben-Cohen <> | Date | Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:38:32 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device |
| |
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com> wrote: >> And to allow early board code to reserve specific hwspinlock numbers >> for predefined use-cases, we probably want to be before arch_initcall. > > There's no reason for board code to have to do this at initcall time.
If we want to have allow both allocations of predefined hwspinlocks with omap_hwspinlock_request_specific(int), and dynamic allocations (where we don't care about the specific instance of the hwspinlock we will get) with omap_hwspinlock_request(), we must ensure that the former _specific() API will never be called after the latter.
If we will allow drivers to call omap_hwspinlock_request() before all callers of omap_hwspinlock_request_specific() completed, then things will break (because drivers might start getting hwspinlocks that are predefined for dedicated use cases on the system).
So if we want the _specific API to work, we can only allow early board code to use it in order to reserve those predefined hwspinlocks before drivers get the chance to call omap_hwspinlock_request().
The tempting alternative is not to provide the omap_hwspinlock_request_specific() API at all (which is something we discussed internally).
Let's take the i2c-omap for example.
It sounds like it must have a predefined hwspinlock, but what if:
1. It will use omap_hwspinlock_request() to dynamically allocate a hwspinlock 2. Obviously, the hwspinlock id number must be communicated to the M3 BIOS, so the i2c-omap will publish that id using a small shared memory entry that will be allocated for this sole purpose 3. we will make sure that 1+2 completes before the remote processor is taken out of reset
This does not require any smart IPC and it will allow us to get rid of the omap_hwspinlock_request_specific() API and its early-callers requirement.
All we will be left to take care of is the order of the ->probe() execution (assuming we want both the i2c and the hwspinlock drivers to be device_initcall)
> > This kind of thing needs to be done by platform_data function pointers, > as is done for every other driver that needs platform-specific driver > customization.
Why would we need platform-specific function pointers here ? I'm not sure I'm following this one.
Thanks, Ohad.
> > Kevin >
| |