lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCHv6 5/5] hwspinlock/omap: add support for dt nodes
From
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com> wrote:
> Hi Suman,
[..]
>
> Does this mean you allow nodes not to have the base_id property? How
> do we protect against multiple nodes not having a base_id property
> then?
>
> Implicitly assuming a base_id value (zero in this case) may not be always safe.
>

Hi Ohad,

I still have a huge problem understanding the awesomeness with the
"base_id". If you have a SoC with 2 hwlock blocks; say 8+8 locks, used
for interaction with e.g. a modem and a video core respectively.
Why would you in either remote system offset the locks with 8?
Wouldn't e.g the modem use locks hwlock0:0-7 and video core use locks
hwlock1:0-7?

What systems use more than one hwlock block and do you know of any
reasons why these hwlocks are globally numbered?

Regards,
Bjorn


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-20 02:21    [W:0.139 / U:3.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site