From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754042AbbF0L0I (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:26:08 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f177.google.com ([209.85.213.177]:33929 "EHLO mail-ig0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755165AbbF0LZv (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:25:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [89.138.218.79] In-Reply-To: <20150627030514.GA893@linaro.org> References: <1433867020-7746-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <20150627030514.GA893@linaro.org> From: Ohad Ben-Cohen Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 14:25:30 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/2] hwspinlock: Introduce raw capability for hwspinlock_device To: Lina Iyer , Bjorn Andersson , Jeffrey Hugo Cc: "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Lina, On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Lina Iyer wrote: > Hi Ohad, > > Any comments? Sorry, I was under the impression the discussion with Bjorn is still open. Like Bjorn, I'm not so sure too we want to bind a specific lock to the RAW capability since this is not a lock-specific hardware detail. As far as I can see, the hardware-specific differences (if any) are at the vendor level and not at the lock level, therefore it might make more sense to add the caps member to hwspinlock_device rather than to the hwspinlock struct (Jeffrey commented about this too). Thanks, Ohad.