From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] OMAP2+: PM: omap device: API's for handling mstandby mode Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:19:06 +0100 Message-ID: <4CF8E03A.4010000@ti.com> References: <1291298392-28729-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <4CF8AC8B.9040800@ti.com> <20101203092514.GA10048@GLPP-machine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:35485 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758379Ab0LCMTM (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Dec 2010 07:19:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101203092514.GA10048@GLPP-machine> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" , Paul Walmsley Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Kevin Hilman , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 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? Regards, Benoit From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:19:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v7] OMAP2+: PM: omap device: API's for handling mstandby mode In-Reply-To: <20101203092514.GA10048@GLPP-machine> References: <1291298392-28729-1-git-send-email-manjugk@ti.com> <4CF8AC8B.9040800@ti.com> <20101203092514.GA10048@GLPP-machine> Message-ID: <4CF8E03A.4010000@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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? Regards, Benoit