lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] hwspinlock/msm: Add support for Qualcomm MSM HW Mutex block
On 8/12/2013 10:35 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/29/13 15:00, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c b/drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..dbd9a69
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/hwspinlock/msm_hwspinlock.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
>> + *
>> + * This software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public
>> + * License version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and
>> + * may be copied, distributed, and modified under those terms.
>> + *
>> + * 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.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/err.h>
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#include <linux/device.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/hwspinlock.h>
>> +#include <linux/io.h>
>> +
>> +#include "hwspinlock_internal.h"
>> +
>> +#define SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC 1
>
> Is this id only for the apps processor? What about hexagon? Does it need
> a different number?

Yes, hexagon would need a different id based on what job that particular
hexagon processor is doing. I'm not currently aware of a hexagon
usecase, but I believe modifying the DT binding in the future would
cover the usecase if it comes up.

>
>> +#define BASE_ID 0
>> +
>> +static int msm_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> + void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
>> +
>> + writel_relaxed(SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC, lock_addr);
>> + smp_mb();
>> + return readl_relaxed(lock_addr) == SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void msm_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>> +{
>> + int lock_owner;
>
> This should probably be u32 to be explicit about the size of the register.
>
>> + void __iomem *lock_addr = lock->priv;
>> +
>> + lock_owner = readl_relaxed(lock_addr);
>> + if (lock_owner != SPINLOCK_ID_APPS_PROC) {
>> + pr_err("%s: spinlock not owned by Apps (actual owner is %d)\n",
>
> Maybe you should just say "spinlock not owned by us (actual owner is
> %d)" so that this driver is agnostic to the processor it runs on?
>
>> + __func__, lock_owner);
>> + }
>> +
>> + writel_relaxed(0, lock_addr);
>> + smp_mb();
>> +}
>>
>


Jeffrey Hugo
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-13 19:01    [W:0.048 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site