From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] OMAP2+: PM: omap device: API's for handling mstandby mode Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:18:22 +0530 Message-ID: <20101214014822.GA3858@manju-desktop> References: <1291298392-28729-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <4CF8AC8B.9040800@ti.com> <20101203092514.GA10048@GLPP-machine> <4CF8E03A.4010000@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.75]:40678 "EHLO na3sys009aog105.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758932Ab0LNBsj (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:48:39 -0500 Received: by mail-yx0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 8so65478yxm.21 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:48:38 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CF8E03A.4010000@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Cousson, Benoit" Cc: Paul Walmsley , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Kevin Hilman , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Paul/Benoit, On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > On 12/3/2010 10:47 AM, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > >* Cousson, Benoit [2010-12-03 09:38:35 +0100]: > > [...] > > >>>v7: replaced mutex lock with spin lock. Added use count for controlling > >>>access to sysconfig registers in case if overlapping request/release API's > >>>are used. > >> > >>I'm not sure it should be done here. I'd rather keep that code in > >>the DMA, since this is the only user of that feature. > > > >Are you referring to spin lock or usage count? > > The spinlock is needed, I was referring to the usage count. > > That being said, the API proposed by Paul (request/release > ) sound like a get/put, so maybe he had that kind of usage in mind. > > I'm still not convince it should be done at hwmod API level. > > > Paul, > Any thoughts on that? How do we proceed further? -Manjunath From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: manjugk@ti.com (G, Manjunath Kondaiah) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:18:22 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v7] OMAP2+: PM: omap device: API's for handling mstandby mode In-Reply-To: <4CF8E03A.4010000@ti.com> References: <1291298392-28729-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <4CF8AC8B.9040800@ti.com> <20101203092514.GA10048@GLPP-machine> <4CF8E03A.4010000@ti.com> Message-ID: <20101214014822.GA3858@manju-desktop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Paul/Benoit, On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > On 12/3/2010 10:47 AM, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > >* Cousson, Benoit [2010-12-03 09:38:35 +0100]: > > [...] > > >>>v7: replaced mutex lock with spin lock. Added use count for controlling > >>>access to sysconfig registers in case if overlapping request/release API's > >>>are used. > >> > >>I'm not sure it should be done here. I'd rather keep that code in > >>the DMA, since this is the only user of that feature. > > > >Are you referring to spin lock or usage count? > > The spinlock is needed, I was referring to the usage count. > > That being said, the API proposed by Paul (request/release > ) sound like a get/put, so maybe he had that kind of usage in mind. > > I'm still not convince it should be done at hwmod API level. > > > Paul, > Any thoughts on that? How do we proceed further? -Manjunath