Re: [PATCH] Lock 7 is cpuidle specific, use non-generic value for locking

From: Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>
To: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
Cc: bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	jhugo@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Lock 7 is cpuidle specific, use non-generic value for locking
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:49:02 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150312204902.GA14659@qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1426189108-35488-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org>

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:38:28PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:

<snip>

>  static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>  {
>  	struct regmap_field *field = lock->priv;
>  	u32 lock_owner;
>  	int ret;
> +	u32 proc_id;
>  
> -	ret = regmap_field_write(field, QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID);
> +	proc_id = hwspin_lock_get_id(lock) == QCOM_CPUIDLE_LOCK ?
> +			QCOM_MUTEX_CPUIDLE_OFFSET + smp_processor_id():
> +			QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
> +
> +	ret = regmap_field_write(field, proc_id);

I think I'd rather have a qcom specific function and EXPORT_SYMBOL that to deal
with this special case.

>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> @@ -42,7 +49,7 @@ static int qcom_hwspinlock_trylock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	return lock_owner == QCOM_MUTEX_APPS_PROC_ID;
> +	return lock_owner == proc_id;
>  }
>  
>  static void qcom_hwspinlock_unlock(struct hwspinlock *lock)
> -- 
> 2.1.0
> 

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project