Messages in this thread | | | From | Ohad Ben-Cohen <> | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:54:37 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] omap: add hwspinlock device |
| |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@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 mmc/i2c/gpio/spi/etc..
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 ?
Thanks, Ohad.
| |